~ archived since 2018 ~

MASCULINITY ~ a case for courage

NonZeroSumJames

June 3, 2024

13 upvotes

/r/MensRights

https://nonzerosum.games/masculinity.html

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Post Information

Title	MASCULINITY ~ a case for courage
Author	NonZeroSumJames
Upvotes	13
Comments	40
Date	June 3, 2024 11:04 PM UTC (2 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1d7ibkw/masculinity_a_case_for_courage/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/masculinity-a-case-for-courage.1520475 https://theredarchive.com/post/1520475

Comments

[–]WhereProgressIsMade 8 points9 points10 points 2 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]WhereProgressIsMade 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]NonZeroSumJames[S] 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

Totally agree as mentioned in the post here...

... and can be adopted by anyone of any gender.

and here

...will make you feel more like a master of your own will, more of a leader and more masculine, regardless of your gender.

and here

I want my daughter to have this sort of courage

The idea of non-zero-sum games is that we can allow for both sides to thrive. The reason I singled out courage as a useful attribute is because I can imagine many men who value masculinity, and feel it is threatened by people who want them to turn away from it, can probably get in behind the idea of courage as something that enriches their own sense of masculinity, while also benefiting those around them. Obviously everyone's different. I'm not sure what your background is or your experiences have been, it's hard to write something that applies to everyone. I'm trying to contribute to the conversation in a constructive way, and would be interested to learn more about your perspective.

[–]WhereProgressIsMade 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]NonZeroSumJames[S] 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

Hi again WhereProgressIsMade,

I do cover in the post why courage is somewhat protected against abuse, defining it as "doing something difficult because it's the right thing to do" or clarified by Christine Emba "for the good of others". In this way for something to be courageous the intent at least needs to be good.

I don't mean this to be flippant, but have you read post itself? So far you seem to have only addressed the title. If you haven't, I recommend reading it, it is really a case made to those outside the men's rights field to take men's needs seriously. It advocates for something I assume you might be behind.

Given the above definition (I think a reasonable one) shop-lifting isn't courageous (unless your family is starving, perhaps), going skydiving without a backup chute is just reckless, or foolhardy, as I mention in the post this is what I call "empty courage", risk-taking for the good of nothing.

I agree with you that without a good moral framework any virtue can become a vice, but that's more of an overarching issue that applies to literally everything in life, not in particular to this issue. If I included all over-arching issues; morality, the environment, epistemology etc the post would have gone on forever :)

Thanks again for your input. I think you make some valid points.

[–]WhereProgressIsMade 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Yes, I read your blog post. I was just trying to answer your questions briefly instead of trying to tackle everything your blog post tried to cover. In the past, when I've tried to engage with people who come here with opposing views, it just ends with them not responding anymore before long. It looks like you're responding and doing your best to handle things civilly even when you're getting some hostile comments, so if I have some time, I'll try to go through your blog post and your comments in relation to it more thoroughly. I'll try to share here the main thing I see though.

I haven't read/listened to Scott Galloway or Christina Emba that I can remember. I have read and listened to some of Richard Reeves stuff, so I'll focus on that and what I've gathered from your thoughts. I'm glad Richard Reeves' work is helping get the message out into the mainstream that boys and men have issues too. His work on that I can get behind, especially when he backs it with data.

He comes up short imo when moving on from there to what can/should be done to try to improve the situation. It seems like it's probably because he's trying hard not to rock the boat and draw the ire of feminists, which would probably get him "canceled" and lose the coverage he's getting in the MSM. So that limits the options a lot. So looking for win-wins or non-zero-sum thinking, is fine, but the main issue is it ignores some of the underlying problems. You can put a fresh coat of paint on a rotten fence, but it's probably better to put your efforts toward replacing the rotten boards first.

When I was a kid, I was taught that if you take a statement and switch the genders or races and the new statement now sounds sexist or racist, the original statement is probably also sexist or racist. The main exception is when simply stating a fact. For example, "Survey [citation] found X% of the US population identifies as African America and Y% identifies as white."

When this principal gets brought up here, it tends to get a lot of upvotes and support and a lot of the posts and comments are due to this not being a principal held by the left, MSM, culture, feminism, etc. which (to us) seems like it's trying to overcompensate for some kind of wrongs that happened before we were born. For example, some go so far as to say that it's impossible to sexist against a man or racist against a Caucasian.

At least in my observation, that's the underlying principal at play. Trying to apply that principal quickly comes into direct conflict with feminism. The MRA sub doesn't shy away from that conflict from my observations. I don't speak for everyone here though of course.

[–]NonZeroSumJames[S] 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I was just trying to answer your questions briefly instead of trying to tackle everything your blog post tried to cover.

Thanks, please don't feel the need to address everything in the blog :)

doing your best to handle things civilly

Thanks I used to argue unproductively on the internet a while ago, and it just raised my cortisol levels, now my key aim is to connect and understand.

So looking for win-wins or non-zero-sum thinking, is fine, but the main issue is it ignores some of the underlying problems. You can put a fresh coat of paint on a rotten fence, but it's probably better to put your efforts toward replacing the rotten boards first.

This is a good point. And I think an approach of dismantling systems is also necessary—it's just not the approach of my blog. The approach of finding win-wins is along the lines of Karl Poppers idea of piecemeal progress, that actually rather than revolution often the most consistent and lasting progress comes from small changes over time. Though I'll grant it's certainly not as sexy as revolution.

switch the genders or races

I use this technique often. But for me it is one of a few tests I run my ideas through, another test is, have I recognised the historical baggage that person or group is carrying? And another is, is this situation non-zero-sum or can we make it positive-sum, regardless of who is at fault, or who is responsible?

I'm middle-aged relatively tall, white man who was raised by loving parents, who were both teachers, so had a good education, with exposure to lots of people who were not as fortunate as I was. I have seen the nonsense my wife has to deal with, including harassment at her work from men who have been grandfathered into roles they contribute very little two. I have seen the abuse my daughter has had at the hands of boys who have been excused with the phrase "boys will be boys". I have seen those relatives who grew up without fathers and how that affected them, and people of other ethnic backgrounds face both racism and inherited disadvantage from a history of racism. I also receive incredible praise when I negotiate for a shorter day at work to pick up my child, or do a range of other ordinary things simply because I'm a man. I'm perhaps uniquely sensitive to how lucky I am, but I think there can be a lack of sensitivity to this amongst some white men particularly (but of course not exclusively).

I have also tried to ask what baggage might the people here on this forum be carrying, and I have tried to exhibit a compassion for that in the way I'm conducting myself, knowing that many here are so because they have legitimate reasons of feeling unfairly hurt or stigmatised.

Thank you for your points and particularly the way you put them across, I know as rational people it shouldn't make a difference, but it does.

[–]LuciferLondonderry 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago (42 children) | Copy Link

[–]NonZeroSumJames[S] -3 points-2 points-1 points 2 years ago (41 children) | Copy Link

Hi Lucifer Londonderry, I appreciate your input. I realise that paragraph is pretty confronting. I hope it was made clear at the end of that paragraph that this was an attitude I conceded...

... may have been misguided.

The characterisation was meant to be a caricature that I realised was flawed. I concede further that on Reddit, on a well-moderated group like this, toxic masculinity in defence of 'men's rights' is kept pretty well in check. But you must be aware of how the group has, in the past, portrayed itself in public, it wasn't people talking about MRAs that gave me the impression I had of MRAs, it was listening to people identifying as MRAs. Thankfully this is less and less true as the discussion matures.

I appreciate your comments about courage not being a requirement, I absolutely understand that for someone barely coping with trauma or abuse, or other difficulties, exhibiting courage might be the last thing they can manage—and my proposition to have everyday courage might seem like an unfair imposition. I want to clarify I don't mean to suggest courage as a requirement for anything, just that there are small courageous things we can do in our lives that might make us feel better about ourselves.

... beaten out of them by abusive misandrists

It's these sort of phrases, by the way, that make people unsympathetic about men's rights. Using terms like "beaten" metaphorically while actual "beating" is playing out in domestic abuse incidents every day, a large majority of which are by men (with far worse consequences) does tend to suggest a lack of perspective. But as I said, I want to be constructive, I don't mean to say you are in any way the problem, I think people need to be able to speak freely about things, we also need to critique what is said. And I appreciate your criticisms of my work, I may go in and make some edits accordingly.

I appreciate the sub welcoming all voices, including mine (it can be pretty hard to get a post on any subreddit these days).

[–]Nobodyknowsthetruth 3 points4 points5 points 2 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]NonZeroSumJames[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 2 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

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

u/Clemicus does this comment (above) qualify as one that might give people the impression I originally had of MRAs?

No. I was referring to this:

I have to admit, I haven't previously taken much interest in "men's rights" because of the way the subject has been represented by Men's Rights Activists—simply regurgitating regressive, misogynistic ideologies, while playing victim, simply because they don't have everything their own way any more. But I have now found my attitude to the subject—saying, "Oh, play the world's smallest violin"—may have been misguided.

I asked who those individuals were and why you’re referring to them as men’s rights advocates. If you’re referring to the conduct of that poster or their language usage, be clearer.

But you must be aware of how the group has, in the past, portrayed itself in public, it wasn't people talking about MRAs that gave me the impression I had of MRAs, it was listening to people identifying as MRAs.

This was in response to the OP (the person who started the comment thread). I took that as an extension of:

simply regurgitating regressive, misogynistic ideologies, while playing victim, simply because they don't have everything their own way any more.

…

It has 4 upvotes... so there is some approval, even in this group.

And? Your post is standing at twelve upvotes. That’s their opinion. You’d have to ask that specific poster why they posted that.

By the way guys friendly fire... the post is advocating for men's rights.

How am I supposed to respond to this? Yes, by definition you are but when your focus is on those you deem to be an issue because they could affect other people I’ve got to question your motives.

That’s why I brought up those who step away and drop out.

[–]Nobodyknowsthetruth 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]NonZeroSumJames[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 2 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]NonZeroSumJames[S] -1 points0 points1 point 2 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Clemicus 3 points4 points5 points 2 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

I hope it was made clear at the end of that paragraph that this was an attitude I conceded...

And a Diet Coke offsets the calories of a Big Mac.

But you must be aware of how the group has, in the past, portrayed itself in public, it wasn't people talking about MRAs that gave me the impression I had of MRAs, it was listening to people identifying as MRAs. Thankfully this is less and less true as the discussion matures.

Could you give examples of these individuals you were listening to and the reasons why they gave you that impression? I’m assuming that list on the website is non-exhaustive.

... beaten out of them by abusive misandrists

It's these sort of phrases, by the way, that make people unsympathetic about men's rights. Using terms like "beaten" metaphorically while actual "beating" is playing out in domestic abuse incidents every day, a large majority of which are by men (with far worse consequences) does tend to suggest a lack of perspective.

You get some perspective. That’s an individual, a single person, on a man’s rights subreddit. You strawmanned the response then used it as a form of shame and framed it as point of contention.

What was the point of highlighting that specific sentence? How you framed it was you’ve got to tone police, otherwise all these issues effecting men won’t taken seriously. That’s pretty manipulative. Essentially how you framed it was, you’ve got to play the game on these specific terms and if it falls out of those bounds it’s no porridge for you.

I had also been listening to Scott Galloway echo many of the same sentiments. This seems to be part of a more healthy discussion around masculinity—a counterpoint to the toxic extremes of the manosphere.

Allow me to paraphrase:

This seems to be part of a more healthy discussion around masculinity—a counterpoint to the toxic extremes of people writing blog posts revolving around the topic of men and maleness.

Lets pretend there’s a femsphere where authors write about the different aspects of femininity and womanhood (and so on). Now take that definition and switch the sexes.

The odd thing here is though, you linked to a page that defines manosphere as an anti-feminist community. That’s a disingenuous argument since manosphere comprises of man and sphere. It isn’t antifemosphere.

Also manosphere, if you believe it exists which I don’t, encompasses numerous groups, movements, and topics. You can’t just go hey, the library has books by toxic authors and hope no-one notices your disingenuous argument.

The reason why I’m pointing this out because of how badly that word has been poisoned and how badly it’s applied. Usually when that word is invoked, it’s in the hope the reader imagines this misogynistic world of men on the internet. But when it reality, it was originally intended to be what blogosphere is to a blog about men and any connected/adjacent topics.

I’ve read through it a few times and to be honest I don’t have the motivation to breakdown any more (and my virtual iOS keyboard is playing up and taking longer to type this out). It doesn’t go beyond the already over discussed talking points or breakout of what masculinity is or isn’t, or even step out of fallacies when it comes to what’s causing it (you put the blame on men and frame it as something woman are effected by). You even cherry picked the list.

And incidentally, what about those men and boys stepping away from society. They’re dropping out of education and work. You focused on individuals causing issues directly through actions but forgot or omitted those.

You unpersoned them. Because they didn’t fit into your definition you unpersoned them. They weren’t deemed worthy of discussion because you’d have to argue why they’re dropping out and with those you did focus on, you have clear reasons as to why.

Edit: Missed some words

Apologies for the rant

[–]NonZeroSumJames[S] 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Clemicus 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]NonZeroSumJames[S] 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

Hi Clemicus, thanks for your lengthy and considered reply.

Apologies for the rant

No worries :) We can still be friends. I do feel like the post has been misinterpreted as an attack on Men's Rights when in fact it advocates for them. We are on the same side... I think.

Could you give examples of these individuals you were listening to and the reasons why they gave you that impression?

I can't go back in time and find examples I'm afraid, but I have noted one in this very thread that gives the basic impression I had.

And a Diet Coke offsets the calories of a Big Mac.

I think in the metaphor the Diet Coke offsets the calories of the Coke, meaning you think you're getting something really bad, but in fact it was a set up for something good—an admission I was wrong about it. I don't really see the point of criticising someone for communicating something they used to think, when in the same paragraph they admit they were wrong to think that way.

I'd like to add that describing my previous impression was, in part, a way of relating to readers who might be coming at this issue with the same defensive stance I had, so as better to convince them that I too once felt as they do, but have changed my mind—so they might be open to changing their minds too.

You get some perspective.

What are we here, 12? XD

That’s an individual, a single person, on a man’s rights subreddit. You straw-manned the response then used it as a form of shame and framed it as point of contention.

I'm don't really understand your point here. I was replying directly to the person about what they commented verbatim.

tone police

This is ironic given this thread began with me being tone-policed about the paragraph discussing my preconceptions about Men's Rights groups. I wasn't meaning to tone police anyone by pointing to the use of the term "beaten", the word "beaten" has a real meaning, it's not a tone or an interpretation, it means being physically hit. The way it was being used, to describe men being metaphorically hit, was lacking perspective. If I were be tone-policing I would have referred to the numerous instances of aggressive tone I've received in this thread while I attempt to converse as politely as possible, but I didn't because I'm not interested in policing anyone's tone, people do themselves a disservice with a rude or aggressive tone, I try to not let it affect me.

As for the manosphere, I admit I am new to the term and went to what I thought of as a reputable source "Nature" a scientific journal, for a definition—I fully admit this could be an unfair characterisation of the term. I wasn't sure whether "manosphere" was used positively by those who discuss men's issues, I was using it in what I thought was the common parlance, recognising that it doesn't encapsulate all the discussion of Men's Rights—as I would then demonstrate by pointing to, what I see as, positive voices in the Men's Rights field.

I recognise how if, as you say "manosphere" was originally a neutral term to describe all groups and discussions dealing with men's issues, that I should re-word the sentence and find a more neutral link. Thanks for the feedback, I appreciate opportunities to make my writing better.

You even cherry picked the list

Ha, yes, I cherry-picked the list of problems so that it could be seen sympathetically, I left out all the gruesome statistics that equate to the muted "have a criminal conviction" and then focused on other addictions which are generally associated with mental illness of some sort or another—precisely so that I could then make the point about men being victims.

what about those men and boys stepping away from society. They’re dropping out of education and work

Galloway, Emba and Reeves all focus strongly on this particular issue, for Galloway it is his primary focus. I mention it in terms of the need for male teachers in primary school, but I purposefully limited my scope, in this post, to the particular non-zero-sum dynamics at play, as that is the prerogative of the blog—this was a blog post by the way, not a book, I can't cover everything. Listen to Galloway for a bit, I think you'll be satisfied this particular group isn't getting "unpersoned".

While I attempted not to alienate men through the writing of this, the post is generally focused on convincing those not already in behind men's rights to pay attention to the issue, as such I have focused on how helping with men's issues can help everyone, a win-win.

[–]Clemicus 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I think in the metaphor the Diet Coke offsets the calories of the Coke, meaning you think you're getting something really bad, but in fact it was a set up for something good

No, calories. The calories from the Diet Coke offsetting those from the Big Mac.

This is ironic given this thread began with me being tone-policed about the paragraph discussing my preconceptions about Men's Rights groups.

Yeah, I'll concede. There's truth to that. My issue was more with, you bring that up but there doesn't seem to be a conclusion to that line. At least not one that's clear. And it's not clear who or what you're referring to (in the paragraph that ends with "may have been misguided").

I can't go back in time and find examples I'm afraid, but I have noted one in this very thread that gives the basic impression I had.

The way I was viewing it was you got your impressions of the men's rights movement from someone else or something else than a poster on here. Like a Youtuber.

That your opinion was, at least partially, formed outside of this subreddit. Lets be honest here, usually when someone posts similar threads it doesn't go well. Very few end constructively.

I'd like to add that describing my previous impression was, in part, a way of relating to readers who might be coming at this issue with the same defensive stance I had, so as better to convince them that I too once felt as they do, but have changed my mind—so they might be open to changing their minds too.

There's little chance of that happening.

Ha, yes, I cherry-picked the list of problems so that it could be seen sympathetically, I left out all the gruesome statistics that equate to the muted "have a criminal conviction" and then focused on other addictions which are generally associated with mental illness of some sort or another—precisely so that I could then make the point about men being victims.

Playing Devil's Advocate. The problem with though, it's recursive in the sense of two victims. You've got victim, who's potentially effecting someone else. So then it comes down to who should or shouldn't be the focus of it. Also they'd be less sympathy when it comes to gambling or addiction, as usually they're seen as having control over those specific things. That they put themselves into that situation.

And mental health is still badly understood. Unless it's pointed out, any overlap isn't seen or noticed. I'm being somewhat hyperbolic, watch any high profile event of a psychosis episode and read the responses.

I recognise how if, as you say "manosphere" was originally a neutral term to describe all groups and discussions dealing with men's issues, that I should re-word the sentence and find a more neutral link. Thanks for the feedback, I appreciate opportunities to make my writing better.

No problem. Think of the different groups or movements within it. They can't simply be categorised under a single word. I might have had good intent but how it's used by say the media, it does more harm than good.

Galloway, Emba and Reeves all focus strongly on this particular issue, for Galloway it is his primary focus. I mention it in terms of the need for male teachers in primary school

Sorry, can't say I've heard of any of them before -- reading those quotes. Yes, because there seems to be benefits associated with male role models within schools. I've only heard of a few instances though.

but I purposefully limited my scope, in this post, to the particular non-zero-sum dynamics at play, as that is the prerogative of the blog—this was a blog post by the way, not a book, I can't cover everything. Listen to Galloway for a bit,

Yeah, that's true. You'd also have the issue of trying to keep it cohesive and readable.

I think you'll be satisfied this particular group isn't getting "unpersoned"

That was more to do with this than anything else:

Men are a group that poses risks to society, and yet they are an at-risk group themselves.

It's how those individuals are viewed. "Men are a group that poses risks to society" can be interpreted in multiple ways. If that list is viewed as actions then unpersoned would be the opposite in my view.

Also it's potentially more difficult to empathise with them. As their actions are undesirable and may offset any empathy. I'm not sure how to explain it better.

[–]NonZeroSumJames[S] 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Hi Clemicus

calories

Never mind, litigating analogies is no fun :)

it's not clear who or what you're referring to (in the paragraph that ends with "may have been misguided").

Well, grammatically it's me that was misguided. I've actually edited that paragraph now to be less offensive.

The way I was viewing it was you got your impressions of the men's rights movement from someone else or something else than a poster on here. Like a Youtuber.

Perhaps, though my experience on this thread, instead of confirming I was misguided, has rather done the opposite—put together it's been a pretty unrewarding advocating for men's rights in a men's rights forum. I also recognise that many have liked the post so I can see some of the comments might not be reflective of the general consensus.

Also they'd be less sympathy when it comes to gambling or addiction

I think they would be more sympathetic about these issues than those I left out—like the percentage of r*pists, m*rderers and committers of war crimes that are men. I think I was pretty charitable folding those under the umbrella of criminal convictions.

I get what you're saying about the Manosphere, I'm rethinking how I refer to that.

If that list is viewed as actions then unpersoned would be the opposite in my view.

I still not quite up with what unpersoning really brings to the table. We need to talk about statistics when talking about a group, otherwise there's no reason to do anything to help the group.

Thanks for your comments, I've tried to address everything important. Thanks for your understanding about the limited scope of a blog post.

[–]Song_of_Pain 3 points4 points5 points 2 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]NonZeroSumJames[S] 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (17 children) | Copy Link

Have you listened to any of Scott Galloway's talks on this? He hasn't written a book on it yet, but has a lot of productive things to say about how we raise boys and how to help them cope with their differences, and addressing classroom inequities (like low numbers of male teachers). I think he and Reeves are both very concerned with making the early years of boys' lives more conducive to their natural inclinations.

the lack of sympathy comes first

I'm not really concerned with who said what first, I'm pretty sure as men we lose "who started it" argument given we really did start this (pre-feminism). But regardless, we need to keep a balanced perspective when putting our views across, we don't get to excuse the misuse of language claiming someone else started it.

By the way, if you read the post, you'll see that I am advocating for people to take the needs of men seriously. We are actually on the same side here, I'm just trying to find a way that balances everyone's needs and doesn't just blame the issue on someone else.

[–]Song_of_Pain 3 points4 points5 points 2 years ago* (16 children) | Copy Link

I think he and Reeves are both very concerned with making the early years of boys' lives more conducive to their natural inclinations.

I don't think Reeves is. He advocates for redshirting boys, and won't say a word about the widespread, pervasive discrimination against boys in K-12 education, perpetrated primarily by female teachers and staff. He's promoting the idea that boys are intellectually inferior to girls, when what's actually going on is boys are being discriminated against and stopped from succeeding in their education by misandrist teachers. And likely getting less parental support than their sisters as well.

I'm not really concerned with who said what first, I'm pretty sure as men we lose "who started it" argument given we really did start this (pre-feminism).

All of that Margaret Meade "men invented the patriarchy" stuff is just a fairy tale.

If you believe in the myth of the patriarchy, you hate men and boys and can't be trusted to advocate on their behalf. It's not an accurate way to model reality and only serves to put collective guilt on maleness.

By the way, if you read the post, you'll see that I am advocating for people to take the needs of men seriously.

Are you? It sounds more like you are advocating for people to take the needs of women, girls, and the powerful within society who benefit from men being docile seriously, and are advocating for men to be changed to better serve that goal.

We need to start by normalizing calling out women (or men) who choose the bear as rotten-hearted bigots. The problems stem from the fact that, bluntly, people, including parents and especially mothers, value boys and men less, and love boys and men less than their female counterparts.

[–]NonZeroSumJames[S] 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

Hi, just like to reiterate that I'm trying to advocate for the men's rights in the post, and don't hate men or boys... I am a man.

Redshirting boys isn't saying that boys are intellectually inferior, it's saying they mature later—which they do. Galloway talks a lot about this issue, more so than Reeves, you might find his style and manner more accomodating.

I don't find the term "patriarchy" very useful, and generally don't use it. I don't think it's in question that our history has been dominated predominantly by men and that feminism was a response to that. This is all I mean by we started it (not you and I personally obviously).

It sounds more like you are advocating for people to take the needs of women, girls

I am trying to make a case to women and girl that there are self-serving reasons to support men's rights. That's the ethos of the blog itself, non-zero-sum games are situations where to be a winner there need not be a loser, both "sides" (for lack of a better word) thrive together.

I don't know what your experience is, and I'm sorry if you have had a rough time of it. I felt loved as a boy and I feel loved as a man by my family and by society, I don't deny that's in large part down to luck.

[–]Song_of_Pain 2 points3 points4 points 2 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

Redshirting boys isn't saying that boys are intellectually inferior, it's saying they mature later—which they do.

The supposed later maturing of boys can't be disentangled from the differential parenting of boys - from the time they are born, boys are given less time with parents, given less physical contact with caretakers, talked to less, etc. We know that stress impacts brain development, and boys live in a fundamentally more hostile world than girls do, at least in the West. The samples taken were from New York, and so you're not necessarily talking about a cross-cultural sample.

I don't think it's in question that our history has been dominated predominantly by men and that feminism was a response to that. This is all I mean by we started it (not you and I personally obviously).

What did we start? You seem to be saying that men, collectively, had some level of authority and used it poorly, and thus we bear collective guilt for it.

My point is that the modern Mens' Rights types were not initially anti-feminist; they were thrown out of the feminist movement for not being hostile enough to men.

I am trying to make a case to women and girl that there are self-serving reasons to support men's rights. That's the ethos of the blog itself, non-zero-sum games are situations where to be a winner there need not be a loser, both "sides" (for lack of a better word) thrive together.

Weird how you're posting it on mens' subs. Consider your audience.

[–]NonZeroSumJames[S] 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

What did we start?

I believe you were saying that the lack of sympathy for MRAs came before MRAs started communicating in a way that would lead to a lack of sympathy. I was saying that the history of male dominance through history, and the suppression of women's rights leading up to feminism probably didn't engender much sympathy in the feminist movement for Men's Rights when it came on the scene. I guess I'm saying gender inequality didn't begin as a result of feminism, the pendulum may have swung past in some areas creating a new inequalities, in academia and male representation in elementary classrooms etc. And I think there are valid reasons to focus on men's issues in this respect, as I make clear in the blog and as the thinkers I reference make clear in their talks and books.

Consider your audience

I posted it on a Men's Rights sub because the post is about and is advocating for Men's Rights. I assumed people would be open-minded enough to appreciate the approach and would not be so quick to take offence. Obviously some people have appreciated it given it has more up votes than down, so I wasn't completely wrong to post it. I appreciate I could have phrased that particular paragraph more sensitively—I was not meaning to gaslight anyone with it. I genuinely hope I have not caused you pain, that was not my intention.

[–]Song_of_Pain 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

I was saying that the history of male dominance through history, and the suppression of women's rights leading up to feminism probably didn't engender much sympathy in the feminist movement for Men's Rights when it came on the scene.

That's just them being bigoted then, that's not MRA's fault.

Also, I would question the "history of male dominance" like it's an axiomatic truism.

I guess I'm saying gender inequality didn't begin as a result of feminism, the pendulum may have swung past in some areas creating a new inequalities, in academia and male representation in elementary classrooms etc.

I didn't say you were saying that either.

I assumed people would be open-minded enough to appreciate the approach and would not be so quick to take offence.

The issue is we're very aware that we're up against people who think the situation is zero-sum, and nobody seems to be telling the feminists who don't want men to do well that things aren't zero-sum, only people on the male advocate side. And, in some cases, as I mentioned, it is zero sum, so part of male advocacy is going to be telling people to stop giving women and girls so many unearned advantages.

It's not a matter of being open-minded, it's that we've previously considered your viewpoint and have moved past it out of necessity. The ideas you're putting forward are things that people who might be involved in a sub like this considered a decade or more ago.

But let's talk about the part of my post I didn't quote - why do you think that it's not important to talk about how mothers stamp out emotionality in their sons and not their daughters, or about how primarily female K-12 teachers grade male students less favorably than female students for the same work? And instead want to talk about how boys should be segregated from girls in education because they're inferior (i.e. mature more slowly)?

[–]NonZeroSumJames[S] 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

Hi again my friend

I would question the "history of male dominance"

... really? Are we having a serious discussion or are we playing games here?

The issue is we're very aware that we're up against people who think the situation is zero-sum

it is zero sum

Is a perfect illustration of why I'm writing the post, two sides who both see the issue in zero-sum terms. I'm pointing out just the things that are non-zero-sum about the issue, that's the scope of the post, that's the purpose of nonzerosum.games —to see opportunities for win-wins. I make clear at the outset that the post does not cover the topic comprehensively.

why do you think that it's not important to talk about how mothers stamp out emotionality in their sons and not their daughters, or about how primarily female K-12 teachers grade male students less favorably than female students for the same work?

I had assumed this was just an opinion of yours given you provided no evidence. I'd be happy to read the evidence, I'm not sure the literature will describe mothers stamping out emotionality in their sons, I'm assuming that's your paraphrasing. But I don't doubt there's something there. I'm always open to learn.

I still think that is an issue that can be seen in a non-zero-sum way—emotionally damaged men are a problem for everyone, not just themselves, so it's worth dealing with this issue for the good of everyone as well as for the benefit of those boys themselves. Again I couldn't cover every issue, and if you can provide the evidence for this claim then that will be some more information if I ever write about this issue in the future.

As far as I know no one is saying boys are inferior, maturing more slowly does not denote inferiority. Humans mature more slowly than goats, it doesn't make us inferior to them.

[–]LuciferLondonderry 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

One thing I have noticed about discussions about gender is that any criticism of Feminists seems to require a preamble along the lines of " I support women, and I understand Feminists are lovely and compassionate, but with that said I have a little complaint about a tiny minority within the movement...". I am sure you, and everyone here has seen variants of this preamble many times.

Here, you seem to be inverting this. "I don't support men, and I want to make it crystal clear that MRAs are utterly savage and beyond all civilised behaviour, but with that said there is a tiny little kernel of truth in what a minority are saying...". I wonder if you have enough intellectual self awareness to see your bias here?

As for your smug handwaving criticism of my even daring to point out that there are men here who have had their courage "beaten out of them by abusive misandrists." I say your criticism here is frankly disgusting and shameful. There are men on here who have literally been beaten by women, seriously and repeatedly, only to discover disgusting people like you handwaving away their experience and gaslighting them by suggesting it didn't happen. The statistics on Domestic Violence are now clear. Reputable law enforcement organisations and social scientists have completely exposed the Feminist lie that women never beat men. We know the truth now. You and your fellow Feminists really need to start working on a new lie.

[–]NonZeroSumJames[S] 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]LuciferLondonderry 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

If your comment which I quoted was you bending over backwards to be polite and courteous, I would really love to see you when you really let it rip...

Still, perhaps I have misjudged you. In the interests of teaching me the error of my ways, perhaps you could do me a small favour?

I would like you to gender reverse your statement which I quoted ( so, something like "I haven't previously been interested in Feminism, simply because of the way the subject has been represented by Feminists - simply regurgitating regressive, man hating ideologies, while playing victim.") Then, pop over to one of the many Feminist subreddits, and just explain that you have made that comment to a Feminist friend and she was strangely offended by it. Just ask for confirmation that it is perfectly fine as a Feminist supporting statement.

In the unlikely event that they disagree that this is a pro Feminist statement, just point out to them that more people would support Feminism if only they were more supportive of statements like this, and the people who say them ( I find that the suggestion that people would like them better if they smiled a bit more is usually welcome at this point in the conversation).

Anyhow, if you could just send me some screenshots of the reactions you get from this little experiment, I promise I will read them with great interest.

As for the little apologetic preamble, I don't use it and I don't intend to use it. Feminist boos mean nothing to me. I have seen what makes you cheer.

[–]NonZeroSumJames[S] 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

I've never had this impression of feminists... it would be weird to make the claim they are regressive or playing the victim. And even now after I just published an article advocating for men's rights, and asking feminists to have empathy for men, who do I get aggression and vitriol from? MRAs... not feminists.

Not once in the post did I say anything positive about feminism at all, not once did I say people should deny their masculinity, or be more feminine. And yet you're still not happy.

I have clarified the way in which I referred to my previous opinion as a misjudgment, it was simply a way to introduce the topic, in order to bring in the people who might have started with the same opinion—the people I'm trying to convince.

I think that's the confusion here, the deference (or preamble) you talk about is commonly demonstrated toward the group you are trying to convince, not the group you are advocating for. The group I'm trying to convince, are the people who hold the view I used to hold. I'm not trying to convince you that men's rights are important—I'm quite sure you hold that opinion already.

Perhaps it wasn't the best idea to reveal my previous opinion, people have a hard time believing people can change.

Do you have any intention of interacting with me as another human being, or have you decided I'm your enemy already? I certainly don't mean to be, and I appreciate you are a human being, who has had a different experience from me. If you see me as an enemy please feel free not to reply.

Edit: a clarification

[–]LuciferLondonderry 0 points1 point2 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

It does seem that you genuinely believe you are a supporter of Men's Rights. I had judged you as an opponent of Men's Rights who was playing pretend - a wolf in sheep's clothing, as they say. For that I apologise.

What I do see is a vast gulf between the way you see your beliefs, and the beliefs you actually hold. I am guessing you are very young. I will try one more time to try to make you aware of this. Maybe if it doesn't land today it might land a few years from now.

If we leave aside your assessment of MRAs, we go to the next part of our first interaction. I suggested that on this subreddit we like to show compassion to male victims of domestic violence. Keep in mind, this subreddit is, as far as I know, the only place on the entire internet where male victims of Domestic Violence can come and be confident of receiving support and compassion. If you had come into this sub and said that even here, male victims of abuse should receive no support or compassion, that would be pretty hardcore merciless. Essentially, you would be suggesting that nowhere on Earth should male victims of DV be given any compassion or sympathy.

Amazingly, though, you went even further than that. You said that I should feel ashamed for even suggesting that we extend compassion to these men. I find it genuinely amazing that I even need to ask this, but: Can you see how it is not possible to hold this merciless a view of men as a class, and at the same time claim to support Men's Rights?

I'll try to come at it from another angle. Can you think of any other group where you would think it fair to say that members of that group who suffer violent abuse should be extended zero compassion anywhere in the world, and that anyone who suggest they should be, should be ashamed? (For me, I would put pedophiles in this category. I think they should be shown no sympathy or compassion by anyone anywhere at any time. On the other hand, I would not claim to be a supporter of pedophile rights). If somebody claimed that, for instance, no Canadian who suffers violent abuse should ever be shown any compassion at all, would you believe that person if they also said they support Canadian rights?

One last angle. You claim to support Men's Rights. Can you name a single actual right that you think Men should have?

I will end as I began, with a critique of the essay you have presented to us. I think you should stop publishing these essays and go away and do a lot more research on the topic of Men's Rights. You seem to me like someone who has just got a yellow belt in karate and is setting themselves up as a public authority on street fighting. At best, you seem ridiculous.

Go and study more. I would advise starting by watching The Red Pill by Cassie Jaye. Then read The Myth of Male Power by Warren Farrell. Then follow your own syllabus for at least a couple of years. When you actually have some idea of what this topic involves, then you might be ready to set yourself up as a public authority on this topic.

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

Thank you for your apology. I appreciate that.

You said that I should feel ashamed

I'm not sure what's going on here, but you seem to be quoting something I didn't say. I never use the phrase "should be ashamed" I think shame is wholly unproductive. You may have misread someone commenting to me, as I have, at least once, on this thread, been told that I should be ashamed.

Can you think of any other group where you would think it fair to say that members of that group who suffer violent abuse should be extended zero compassion

Again, this seems to be misquoting me, I never said anything about extending zero compassion, my entire post is about the need for empathy for men.

Saying there's a gap between what I profess to support and what I say, and then quoting me as saying things I literally did not say is not intellectually honest. If you want to quote me, please quote me, and perhaps something other than the one (qualified) paragraph you have previously (that we've covered ad nauseum)

Can you name a single actual right that you think Men should have?

The policies I noted in the post were prison reform, incentivising male teachers in primary school and better access to apprenticeships. But in terms of actual rights I know there are some custody rights that probably need an update and other rights based on equality that might be unbalanced due to historical assumptions around gender roles—I didn't research these for the blog because they were outside the scope of the non-zero-sum angle that I always approach my posts with (it's the theme of the blog).

As I say clearly in the post, it's not a comprehensive survey of the issue. My site in no way pitches me as an expert in any particular area... it is furnished with cartoons for goodness sake and uses a font pretty close to comic sans. I am always open to taking on feedback and often edit the posts based on feedback, and to be honest I'll probably change that paragraph to something more sensitive—but the aggressiveness of the responses I've had here really hasn't encouraged me to.

I'm 43 by the way. But believe me, I've learned a lot about maturity in the last couple of days.

[–]DrieverFlows 1 point2 points3 points 2 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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