~ archived since 2018 ~

A man's got to know his limitations

OsirisFox

May 8, 2013

8 upvotes

/r/MensRights

Archived from /r/MensRights

r/MensRights is a community advocating for the social and legal equality of men and boys since 2008.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/MensRights archive

Download the post

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

PDF TXT EPUB

Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Post Information

Title	A man's got to know his limitations
Author	OsirisFox
Upvotes	8
Comments	61
Date	May 8, 2013 12:51 AM UTC (13 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/mensrights/comments/1dwfn7/a-mans-got-to-know-his-limitations/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/a-mans-got-to-know-his-limitations.1612231 https://theredarchive.com/post/1612231

Comments

[–][deleted]16 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]11 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]hardwarequestions7 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]8 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]brebnbutter2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]11 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

My interpretation of this article, besides overall agreement, conflicts with a few of OP's points, I'll elaborate;

Since when was it normal "to have it all".

I think OP's correct in his indignation with this statement, the idea that women could "have it all, i.e., raise a family AND pursue a professional career, is a relatively recent development of the last few decades due largely to 2nd wave feminism's determination in redefining the role of a women from the traditional "wife and mother" to "career woman". As biology dictates, you can only ignore the call to pass on your DNA for so long, and thusly, the promise to women of fledgling professional careers and academic pursuit.

Also, this article makes as if men just sit on their arses at home.

Of course not, men are working. Upon discovering the difficult realities of trying to "have it all", women are obligated to abandon the job they can actually quit, having already fallen behind during maternity leave; (not parenthood). Thus, men are shoved back into the roles of providers, (consequently, child support payments are assumed for divorced fathers) and women are shoved back into the role of caregivers. Far from accusing men of shirking responsibility, I think this article is calling for men to focus on the raising of families, what would be traditionally considered the jobs of women, as women, in growing numbers, join the work force. I'm not implying that the working fathers are all deadbeat Homer Simpson-esque characters, but raising a family is work that requires more than one person's attention, and the role of a father as well as a mother is imperative in a child's life.

While this article's title and tone was antagonistic, I don't think it calls for an extreme in the opposite direction; in no way am I envisioning every family as a smartly-dressed business woman coming home to her hubby in a "kiss the cook" apron holding a baby, I'm just suggesting this could be a possibility, as well as the family with stay-at-home mom, or the one (mine for my upbringing, for example) where dad worked during maternity leave and then mom went back to work so dad could watch his kid take her first steps IRL. The role of women in a family dawdles in the past, and it's beneficial to neither men, women, nor the children they're trying to raise.

edit: grammar&syntax, vocabulary choice

[–]brebnbutter2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I wasn't the OP and have no particular bone to pick with anyone regarding the matter I think couples should be free to work it out amongst themselves on how best to raise their children (paternity leave aside), however I was referencing a rebuttal to the reply to your comment "sarcastic, selectively paraphrased paragraphs about warped feminism idealogy" that you'd linked, but not replied to.

Solid commentary, I won't disagree with whats written. Further you admit you agree on several points and the article was antagonistic and somewhat misguided (i.e. "The role of women in a family dawdles in the past, and it's beneficial to neither men, women, nor the children they're trying to raise.")...

You're welcome to air grievances with anything said of course, but you'd do better giving your reasoning prior to flaming wouldn't you agree?

[–][deleted]3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]JudDredd-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]JudDredd1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]-2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Why thank you for the English lesson, but I can assure you it wasn't necessary. I understand perfectly the context and the reasoning of that statement.

It also seems to me, that the article indirectly infers that men somehow have it all and once again discounts the difference between rights and obligations.

It seems to imply that no ground has been made in regards to women in the workplace and throws around statements like "We've seen what can be accomplished when we use 50 per cent of our human capacity." Are they completely discounting the contribution that women have made to society over the last 50 years?

Then they go on to state "The workforce participation rate among men remains stubbornly higher than women, at 72 per cent compared to women's 59 per cent." That's less than a 20% difference. Hardly earth shattering when you consider that many women CHOOSE to be stay at home mums. Perhaps it remains "stubbornly" high because it's plateaued at a level that the population is happy with.

I'd also like to caveat this by saying it is far more risky/dangerous for a country to have an economy with a large contingent of unemployed men than the reverse. Sadly, people will interpret that statement as sexist, or of course say "Yip, because men are all savage rape apologist pigs."

What about this one, "It's time we stopped viewing women's rights as purely a social issue, but also an economic issue." Wow... just wow. As far as I'm concerned, it's always been an economic issue. The social issue is new wave feminism ideology that has somehow warped human rights to be Gender rights.

I don't think I really need to draw up a list of a ton of high power women in todays age. One can logically deduce that these power women couldn't have just popped up all of the sudden into these jobs, but that those heights are now available due to years of reform.

The rich are just looking to further exploit us (all of us), and Warren Buffet is a few years behind and purely looking to "raise his stock" with women.

I could go on, but tired now.

[–]ThePigman1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]friestogo6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheWakeUpCall7 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Rattatoskk5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Not that I mind picking up my socks and changing the kitty litter, but "This is how it should be" is basically just agreeing with the notion that women have less responsibilities in the home, while men have more.

It hints at the truth of the matter, which is simply this:

Women get more opportunities. Men get more responsibilities.

And yeah, men can "man up". We do it all the time. But.. it still lingers there.. inch by inch, nickle and dimed, we get more obligation; women get more emancipation.

There is no theoretical (forget practical, that's out of the question) reason to want to be a man; especially in a hetero relationship. The language itself has become a technical battleground, where meaning of sentiment takes a backseat to the meaning of words.

It's sort of like that new feminist word: Micro-agressions. I like the ring of it. It encapsulates an idea that didn't quite have a form until I heard the word. That's the essence of the way the society is changing. Like a sunflower seed that found it's way into a wall, and grows slowly and serenely, splitting the rock and causing a landslide.

Oblivious to it's own destructive power, it grows claiming to be peaceful.

How can it cause harm? It's just a flower.

[–]TheWakeUpCall3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Rattatoskk0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I would be down for that if:

A. Everyone's responsibilities are manageable. B. It is truly equal.

Men have given a lot of ground from their side, but the feminine side doesn't seem interested in conceding any of it's privilege. It makes the male side of the equation daunting. We must shoulder the same work load as we always have, while also picking up more responsibilities.

The basic theme goes:A woman is a man's equal in every way, except when she isn't, and then men must accommodate her.

The trouble is, it's becoming more trouble than it's worth to be a male. We're getting the shaft in all departments, and the "freedoms" that feminism has created simply don't apply to males. It expands women's options under the false notion that men have always had these choices. It ignores that they were never choices. They were obligations.

I will say though, that in the right circumstances all these female protections can be a good thing. For instance, my g/f and I determined that she has much more job security than I do. That means that for stability's sake, I'll be looking after the kid when we have one.

It's the only sensible thing to do; leverage the advantages in your favor, when possible. After all, she will have a much easier time of work; no one will ask her to move anything over 20 lbs, she'll live longer, not get as stressed out as a man in her position, and enjoy a secure job because women get laid off at dramatically lower rates than men.

And as for me, homemaking is REALLY, REALLY easy compared to man-work.

[–]gunchart1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CrossHook1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]gunchart5 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SteelCrossx1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]gunchart3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SteelCrossx0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No, and no it doesn't.

I'm sorry, I probably should have been more clear here. I'm not saying you're claiming an equivalency. A simile definitely requires you to make the claim the two things are similar, at least in some way. I asked my initial question because I was curious as to what ways you think they are similar, which you've answered, so thank you!

I'm pointing out how, much like the gradual shifting of gender roles has so far shifted the burden of household responsibilities from being entirely on the woman to only the majority on the woman and some now on the man, the civil rights movement shifted some of the burden of institutionalized racism off of non-whites at the expense of some white privilege. The common theme here is 'correcting unjust inequality,' and to complain about the former is to complain about the latter.

I'm really not sure this is a bad thing. White people (and black people) complaining about the redistribution of labor at the end of slavery led to the examination of sharecropping as a practice and the inequities involved. The ending of slavery was still absolutely and unequivocally a good thing but that doesn't mean that every reaction that results will also be good. Sharecropping wasn't good and needed to be complained about to be addressed even though it wasn't, by strict definition, a racial problem. The idea that any complaint that comes from removing gender roles is a result of privilege just shuts out conversation, I'd say.

I view the MRM as being similar to those complaining sharecroppers. Most people here aren't saying that we should readopt a Traditionalist model just because gender equality has had some negative results. How I read this forum specifically, most people are saying that we're not done with correcting gender inequality and that some of the changes that have been made have resulted in new problems that also need to be addressed.

[–]gunchart3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I view the MRM as being similar to those complaining sharecroppers. Most people here aren't saying that we should readopt a Traditionalist model just because gender equality has had some negative results. How I read this forum specifically, most people are saying that we're not done with correcting gender inequality and that some of the changes that have been made have resulted in new problems that also need to be addressed.

Yeah, the problem with your analogy is that the MRM generally blames feminism for those gender inequalities that hurt men, which would be like blaming freed slaves for the injustices of sharecropping. Feminism only caused those within the MRM to look hard at gender inequality because they felt they were losing privilege. There may be a few MRAs here and there that don't blame feminism for gender inequalities that hurt men, but they are MRAs in name only, at that point they are just retreading ground feminism covered decades ago.

[–]SteelCrossx0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]gunchart1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]IHaveALargePenis9 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ZimbaZumba8 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]6 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Rattatoskk3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ThePigman1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ThePigman1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]7 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheWakeUpCall1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheWakeUpCall0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]-1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheWakeUpCall3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheWakeUpCall3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It's not something I talk about tbh. But I know a lot of women who are very focused and career driven. I don't think they desire to be homemakers at all.

I don't know what part of the world you're from, maybe this is a factor. I'm from the UK and I think the homemaker idea of women is fading very fast indeed. Most women will stay at home with their kids for 18 months before going back to work. Many will stay at home less. That said, they may go part time for a little while. Then it's play school until the age of 4, and then normal school.

I've discussed with guys the idea of paternity leave, and I think many would be open to the idea if their partner had the larger income (which is becoming more and more prevalent).

You come across as thinking all women desire to be gold diggers if only they had the chance. The women I know aren't really interested in this.

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheWakeUpCall1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I think the real crux of the issue is equality. It's up to couples themselves to decide whether the woman should or the man should look after a newborn child. Some women may be happy to stay at home and have looked forward to this for their whole lives (I think this is a nicer way of putting it instead of thinking women are less ambitious because they plan to piggyback on a man's success) or if a woman is career driven and is the breadwinner then the man may bring up the child. Or it may be that the man particularly wants to bring up the child, especially if it's a second child and they didn't take leave the first time around. Couples can take it in turns of who looks after a child.

What's important is that the laws are in place for couples to make these decisions. As far as I can tell, in the UK it is completely possible for both men and women to take paternity/maternity leave.

It sounds like where you are perceptions of the roles of men and women haven't quite shifted as much as they have here. Then again, it may just be that the circles I am in are different from the views of a lot of people. Regardless, I think equality is key. A lot of men's rights believers and feminists (I'm not necessarily including you in this) seem to treat it like a competition, wanting one particular sex to have power over the other. The reality is that gender shouldn't be part of the equation.

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The problem is, every action requires an equal but opposite reaction to neutralize it. Thus each side needs to ratchet up the rhetoric to unfathomable heights and people start fighting for things they don't even believe.

You sound very sensible and have completely disarmed me and have my noggen ticking absorbing new thoughts and ideas. This is sensible debate.

For interest, I really do believe I have been adversely affected to some degree by feminism (which started in academia). In primary school I was singled out as ADHD and "treated" with medication (mind altering medication during my formative years mind you), and stupid tests which challenged my notion of self worth. I was 8 years old. All because I didn't fall into line (read: bond) with female teachers, and how they thought boys need to be taught and should behave. Thing is the male teachers had other ways to get boys attention because they were boys themselves once too and understood how we think.

For info, I'm a westerner, my heritage is British.

Thank you for the great conversation. Take care.

[–]literallyschmiteraly4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]4 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]literallyschmiteraly3 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]AceyJuan2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted]1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ThePigman1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link