Male privilege. | MensRights

I think the issue is that part of "being masculine" is "being disposable" thinking of yourself in this way and being treated this way is wrong. It used to be ok to not be such a big deal because in exchange for being treated disposable men at least had some power and respect in their households but post-feminism this is a MAJOR problem. It's not that men shouldn't act masculine it's that in a post-feminist environment acting masculine is like embracing all the sacrifices which came with being male from previous eras while not having any of the benefits. I'm not a conserva-feminist, so this isn't an attempt to justify turning the clock backwards but it does explain why men can not just blindly embrace "masculinity".

Imagine the reverse, a society where feminism never happened but there was a huge men's movement in the early 20's where men stopped marrying and wanting to work for women and children. Would it be better for women to embrace femininity and get more into cooking and cleaning? Or would it make sense for them to say fuck this I'm going to get a job and take care of business myself?

This is kind of the reason why masculinity, as it is defined today should not be embraced by MRA's. It's toxic for men and a new masculinity needs to be defined. I propose keeping the hardworking, strong individualistic side of masculinity but 86ing the "giving to women and children" aspect of it.

[–]BalllsackTBaghard 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]HappyGerbil885 points 13 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ptgrenville -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]radrler -6 points-5 points-4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BuncyTheFrog 8 points9 points10 points 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]frankie_q 16 points17 points18 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

The former. There are misandrist feminist dog-whistle phrases scattered throughout the kickstarter page. The previous video made by this troupe was a lament about the lack of women in powerful positions in politics and industry. So making a video encouraging men to be feminine is a logical follow on, because...

Feminists don't want to make men less masculine because they think it's self-destructive and they care about men, they want to do it because they know masculinity is empowering. It's why they celebrate masculine women so much. It's why they are so keen to get women into STEM fields. It's why they're so delighted by aggressive women and so strongly against all these traits in men. But they want the power without the pain; they want equality but only if they can still be treated like princesses; they demand favourable working conditions, job security, higher pay (via the wage gap myth), curbs on competitiveness in the boardroom and quotas in politics. They know women raised as princesses can't compete with men on level footing so they want to legislate away competitive ways of organising business and politics, while socially castrating boys from an early age and sabotaging their educations so there's less to challenge once they've grown up. This has the handy consequence of there being all the more men to do those icky jobs in the glass cellar...

Meanwhile, they're dismantling the support networks that used to exist for men; any male-only space is now deemed misogynistic and must be shut down, or opened-up to women and appropriately sanitized. The banter and fraternal bonding that used to happen between men is now vulgar and troubling, emotional outlets like sports are violent, expressions of sexuality are said to cause rape and heaven forbid men should assemble to discuss men's social issues without the necessary feminist oversight to persuade them that their very masculinity is the source of all their problems.

Men, on the whole, with some exceptions, like being masculine; they like being strong, they like being respected, they like being seen as protectors, creators, inventors, stoic, loyal, honest, daring and self-sacrificing. And when these traits were celebrated and rewarded by society, and when men were allowed to support each other, they weren't nearly as confused or suicidal as they are now.

Of course, not all men identify with masculinity, and not all women identify with femininity. It's important that men and women not be forced into gender roles that do not suit them; ridiculing effeminate boys and hammering them against an anvil to try and shape them does nothing but damage them, as does trying to make tom-boys be more feminine. Trying to force someone to be something they're not can only do them harm. This was one of feminism's most important and valid messages. So you have to ask yourself; why now are feminists; champions of this idea, so keen to force masculine men to be something they're not?

[–]intensely_human 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]HappyGerbil886 points 13 years ago* [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

It's about how men are hurting boys. A segment of the trailer has a bunch of voiceovers of "be a man" and "man up." EVERY SINGLE ONE of the 30 or so voices is male. The film seems to go out of their way to pretend that women never put any pressure on men to "man up." No mention of the fact that women make it known they won't date a guy unless he "man's up" and makes the first (and 2nd and 3rd) move. No mention of the fact that I've had numerous women give me relationship advice that essentially boiled down to: Be more assertive/aggressive/dominant, take charge, and bury any and all insecurities as deep as I can. Nor any mention of the fact that the main reason men feel pressure to be "manly" is so we can attract women, not so other men will approve of us.

It's just Feminist propaganda so they can smear men while simultaneously claim "Look! We're working on men's issues too!"

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

[–]UnconfirmedCat -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BrambleEdge 77 points78 points79 points 13 years ago (88 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 13 points14 points15 points 13 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]HoundDogs 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]ladysuccubus 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]HoundDogs 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

The phrase "rape culture" means different things to different types of feminists. In many cases, the phrase is used as sort of a buzzword, or a place for feminists to direct their anger. "I don't like this behavior, must be this overreaching "rape culture" resulting from "The Patriarchy".

Let's take conspiracy theory and apply the same type of reasoning:

I don't like this behavior, must be Rothschild Zionism as a result of the Illuminati.

Now, the reason that sounds strange is because neither of those things exists, and most people know this. However, for some people, blaming Zionism and the Illuminati for problems brings up a bunch of random anger toward, in this case, the ruling class....even if most of that ruling class has absolutely no idea what they are talking about.

For this reason, using phrases like "rape culture", "toxic masculinity", and "the Patriarchy" to blame our problems on reaches the exact same ends....that is to say, it does almost nothing to help the actual problems your upset about. It just perpetuates unnecessary anger.

You mentioned people who blame victims. People who do that, in the mind of most of us, are wrong. You know it, I know it. However, I'm not about to go out and create some imaginary, Illuminati like "rape culture" that assumes that all men in the culture are victim blaming pigs. I'm going to deal with the problem on a case by case basis and attack the specific behaviors that I have a problem with....as opposed to an entire gender within a massive culture.

Perhaps if we identify and quantify the individual behaviors we find contribute to crime (i.e. rape) then we can have a better idea of how to solve the problem, instead of searching for the appropriate demographic to blame and shame.

As far as a rape joke goes, I'm not about to sit here and dictate how someone chooses to use their sense of humor and tell them they should feel bad for trying to use humor as a tool to deal with something horrible. I think, in many cases, a joke can me made to highlight the absurdity and awfulness of a particular thing...in this case rape. I'm not going to tell someone to sensor their words because maybe that person deals with difficult topics (like rape) with a sense of humor as opposed to the way, say a feminist, wants them to deal with it. Who am I to say?...Who are you to say?

Edit: added part about quantifying behavior.

[–]nwz123 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]HappyGerbil88 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]accountt1234[S] 20 points21 points22 points 13 years ago (75 children) | Copy Link

[–]BrambleEdge 20 points21 points22 points 13 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]accountt1234[S] 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]Gallifreyan_Type_40 14 points15 points16 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Vanitati 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]pocketknifeMT -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Incruentus 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]intensely_human -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mytecacc 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BrambleEdge 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]texasjoe 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]misterdoctorproff 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Goatkin 8 points9 points10 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]ladysuccubus 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]5_by_5 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]themountaingoat 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Skithiryx 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]gypsywhisperer 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Frostxtq 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Frostxtq 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Skithiryx 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]Bluepillschool 22 points23 points24 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]burnzit -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]UnconfirmedCat 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (36 children) | Copy Link

[–]Anon9742 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (35 children) | Copy Link

[–]UnconfirmedCat 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (34 children) | Copy Link

[–]pumpkindick 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link

"A sensitive caring and compassionate human being or a depressed, lonely, and disconnected portrayal of masculinity." These concepts are not mutually exclusive. They are in fact inextricable woven together. Obviously the happiest men are those that put themselves before others. (Buy that Mustang you want, even though your wife wanted a mini-van) I'm not promoting selfish behavior, but this woman seems to have missed the point. And it's not just an American issue -- It's a pressure to bear the weight of the world and ask for no ones help. To be quite honest, male suicide is more prevalent in eastern cultures where there is still a heavy pressure for a single patriarch to care for an entire family. My point is, when men are responsible, caring, and compassionate human beings, they must put their own emotions/desires aside. This is exactly what leads to a path of self destruction. Putting yourself aside, not doing what you want, not saying how you feel, becoming depressed, drinking. I was raised catholic and constantly fed these rules of how to be righteous, and how I should live my life. I have tremendous respect for my father, supporting my family, but I'm certain it's what killed him. (Never had time to promote his books, practice his magic tricks, nothing for himself. So he ate horribly unhealthy comfort foods with no time to exercise, and had a massive stroke) This is the mistake of modern culture that is killing men. The doctrine to put others before yourself and hide your weakness. I've seen this pressure come more from women than other men. Men understand each other more often than not. While women sexually still run on the Electra complex -- they want a new father figure to protect them. A figure that is strong and without weakness. This documentary doesn't seem to get it at all.

[–]nwz123 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Yup. Can totally attest to this phenomenon. Seen it myself in a number of individuals (it's not just a male problem, but a HUMAN problem) and have experienced this myself. When you're so heavily invested in taking care of other people's problems, you end up neglecting your own needs. You weigh this neglect against a barometer (in your head) that says 'the more I do, the better the results, the better I am' and keep on going. It's a barometer that smacks against reality since those needs don't really go away, so you either start becoming increasingly detached from a healthy sense of needs/selfishness all together, or it reroutes back through the target of which you're putting all your effort into (ie the explanation for why it's such a common phenomena to see parents that want their children to do X, Y, Z, with their lives...basically being controlling. they view their children as extensions of themselves).

Anyways, if at the end of the day the result is either self-destruction or a passive-aggressive (or down-right overt) desire to control the target of all that you're investing in, it's not really 'selfless' at all. It's just dysfunctional. You need a healthy balance of both (selfishness/selflessness) or something's gonna give.

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

[+]UnconfirmedCat -6 points-5 points-4 points 13 years ago (28 children) | Copy Link

I never thought it possible for a person to miss a point so completely. The high incidence of violence, especially directed inward that young men struggle with is a direct result of the repression of emotion. You're told to buck up, man up, don't cry like a girl, come back and talk to me when you're a man, we talk this way to our kids. Why, because that's how you were talked to and on down the line, and it's literally killing you. Seeking help is a sign of weakness, talking it out is for women. Men are superior and punch and drink and fuck their emotions away, right? No. We do a disservice to totally ignore what's going on here. It's not this noble self-sacrifice that is taking our men, it's that our men aren't talking. Not even to each other, without that ever policed "masculinity" They aren't saying "I need help", they aren't saying "I don't feel like I measure up. I haven't made anything of myself." they aren't telling us "I feel so alone, I don't think anyone is like me". These things get stuffed until one day your head and your heart simply cannot bear the weight and you find that "manly" gun and you finally buck up.

[–]pumpkindick 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago* (27 children) | Copy Link

Sorry, I don't see the difference in what you and I said. Look at the word you used "Self-Sacrifice." Very fitting. Did you read my whole post? Being told to "buck-up" and "repress your emotions." All of that is indeed putting yourself aside for someone else. Nobly sacrificing a bit of yourself each time you do it. Dude we're saying the same thing, emphasizing different aspects.

EDIT: You mention a need for communication, and I completely agree with that. There is pressure to not ask for help. I think men should say how they feel all the time. I almost killed myself a couple years ago from this very thing. You eventually feel alone and no one understands you. Then you realize it's entirely your fault for blocking everyone out. On this same note however, punching and fucking are certainly ways of expressing yourself. They may or may not be the best way, but it's better than just letting those emotions simmer until -- as you say -- you buck up and use that manly gun.

I didn't miss the point, I'm just attempting to say the trailer seemed focused too much on displays of male aggression and dominance among friends causing repression of emotion, when the bigger issue that causes this repression is ignored. Honestly just look at the suicide rates -- I don't think the countries at the top have masculine stereotypes of punching, fucking, and drinking to blame. It's the patriarchal form, where a man is expected to be a god.

I don't want guys to start leaving their wives and raping women. My point is simple. Work on yourself first, get help if you need it, do things you genuinely enjoy, then if you're able you can do things for other people. Our society never tells boys that life is about doing what you want and leaving your honest mark on the world. It tells them to put aside their individuality, what they want, how they feel, and behave in a very specific manner that is convenient for others. In many ways that's harmful to our species as a whole.

[–]nwz123 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

Exactly. They're not talking about the man behind the curtain; the ideological foundation that underpins the entire socialization process of men - 'The patriarchal form'. Feminists point to this thing, say that men have created it, that men benefit from it, and that it's oppressive/wrong.....and then they go on to reconstruct the whole damn thing in a different form that's supposedly 'for women' now.

But that's just trying to take advantage of an oppressive model that wasn't made for men by men, but by society FOR society. Man as 'provider/protector.' Man as 'leader' (responsibility/duty). Man as the first line of defense for society against all of the shitty things in life. Man as 'less than' if he's not working constantly to give back into society more than he himself takes out; man as having no 'intrinsic value' outside of that which he does (and always, a 'doing for others').

It's THIS 'patriarchal' form that's never critiqued. Never attacked. Just appropriated and changed. Though it's form changes with the hands that own it, there it remains, wholly intact and operational. Whether it be a traditional, social-organic model with rigid gender/social roles, or a feminist/leftist/progressive/statist model that disconnects the workings of society from these social-organic models of human interaction and expected behavior (for example even if you're single, if you work then you pay taxes and if you pay taxes then your money is going to support the social safety net which, in-turn, supports needy families the most, etc, which I'm not saying is a bad thing in itself, i'm just pointing out the functions behind it) the end result is still the same - society keeps moving forward. And onward it marches, whether it be on the backs of social undesirables (back in the day, it was 'slavery'), or on fully-functioning and contributing groups of people/individuals. It doesn't matter; the functionality is still achieved.

So when society tells a man to 'buck up', it's really just trying to bring down the full weight of social coercion onto the head/back of an individual attempting to break out of conformity (because heaven forbid a worker-drone actually tries to do something healthy/beneficial for themselves outside of social-expectations of behavior).

I mean, feminism did a good job of freeing women from their side of this equation (and continues this fight to this day). In modern society today women don't have to go through a lot of things they used to have to go through 'back in the day.' This is good. But until we see the same thing happen for men, I feel that this type of toxic masculinity (which is really just a symptom; a byproduct of the system that produces the 'man as patriarch' model in the first place) will continue to exist to perpetuity. This is why men's rights exist, imo. We need to free men in the same way that women were freed and are still being freed. We need to have a model of society in which freedom, choice, and willful/mutually-beneficial association are the social norms of the day when it comes to engaging in society itself.

[–]UnconfirmedCat 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[–]pumpkindick 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Terraneaux 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago* (23 children) | Copy Link

[–]UnconfirmedCat0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You're contradicting yourself, first you're saying we're striving for "sexless, aggressionless [sic]" men that are "less than women" when in your other comment to me you said we still want "emotionless breadwinners" which basically leaves men being robots and is the opposite of everything I've said...It sounds like you don't have the first clue about what feminism actually is and are just creating absurd hyperbolic scenarios where it's responsible for every evil you can conjure. That would be like me knowing nothing about the theory of gravity and saying if I take my boat out on the water that I'll get sucked to the bottom and that gravity is going to kill my family. Instead, if you are going to argue theory, it's best to have a 101 understanding of the concept or else guess who looks silly? I'd love to continue with you, but that would mean me sitting here first educating then leaping to discussing finer nuanced points with you when I'd like to engage you only if you have a basic grasp of beginners concepts. And it doesn't look like you'd want to learn either, so I guess this ends our discussion.

[–]themountaingoat0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]UnconfirmedCat0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]themountaingoat2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]UnconfirmedCat1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]themountaingoat1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You too can be a good black, just accept your inferiority and work hard to overcome your natural bad tendencies that are a result of your blackness! We want to help you overcome your inferiority!

Where are you getting your facts from?

Just decades of experience with feminists. Feminists welcomed Valerie solanis, a woman who advocated killing all men and actually attempted to kill several, into the fold calling her "a true feminist hero". I don't see how calling feminism a hate movement doesn't fit.

Also, partiarchy theory, which almost all feminists embrace, is shockingly similar to the anti-semetic book "protocols of the elders of zion" which says that jewish people have been controlling everything and holding everyone else down for all of history.

That is not even going into the fact that feminists groups fight against equal custody for men, prevent male victims of domestic violence from receiving help (indeed they manipulate statistics to attempt to show that they don't exist), portray all men as rapists, or rape as natural male behavior, and ignore all the ways in society that men suffer more than women.

[–]UnconfirmedCat2 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

God, Solanis is trotted out every single time, yet you guys are totally OK with men like Thomas James Ball, Marc Lépine and Anders Brevik (who stated "It’s the destructive and suicidal “Sex and the City” lifestyle (modern feminism, sexual revolution) which we are taught to revere as the truth. In that setting, men are not men anymore, but metro sexual and emotional beings that are there to serve the purpose as a never-criticising soul mate to the new age feminist woman goddess. The perfect matriarchy has now been fulfilled and complete equality has finally been achieved." in his rambling manifesto. And those are just a few. This is who you are, these are facts. I know it's not a lot against your personal anecdata.

And wow, you're really using the Nazis angle here, huh? You're really making comparisons to the "protocols of the elders of zion"? This isn't some half-washed conspiracy theory about who calls the shots, it is evidenced by who in positions of power and influence, and how they're leveraging it.:

The number of female presidents and prime ministers who are presently in power as of July 14, 2013 is 19, there are 195 countries in the world.
[There have been 44[1] women in the United States Senate since the establishment of that body in 1789. Currently, the 113th Congress has 20 female senators, the most in U.S. history.[2]](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_United_States_Senate], there are 100 seats in the US senate.) There are 100 seats in the US Senate.
Women currently hold 4.2 percent of Fortune 500 CEO roles and 4.2 percent of Fortune 1000 CEO roles..

This is just int he Western World we aren't even touching the rest of the globe with child brides, women not being allowed to drive and women as property.

That is not even going into the fact that feminists groups fight against equal custody for men

Actually, studies have found that men typically win custody when they care to seek it. Courts can't be expected to award what they're not asked to.

Study 1: MASS 2100 cases where fathers sought custody (100%) 5 year duration

29% of fathers got primary custody 65% of fathers got joint custody 7% of mothers got primary custody

Study 2: MASS 700 cases. In 57, (8.14%) father sought custody 6 years

67% of fathers got primary custody 23% of mothers got primary custody

Study 3: MASS 500 cases. In 8% of these cases, father sought custody 6 years

41% of fathers got sole custody 38% of fathers got joint custody 15% of mothers got sole custody

Study 4: Los Angeles 63% of fathers who sought sole custody were successful
Study 5: US appellate custody cases 51% of fathers who sought custody were successful (not clear from wording whether this includes just sole or sole/joint custody)

The study concluded:

The high success rate of fathers does not by itself establish gender bias against women. Additional evidence, however, indicates that women may be less able to afford the lawyers and experts needed in contested custody cases (see “Family Law Overview”) and that, in contested cases, different and stricter standards are applied to mothers."

Actually, women have collaborated to make sure men have their own safe havens when facing domestic abuse. It's just that MRA' think that they have the right to say men should have access to women's abuse shelters ignoring the fact there are in fact resources for men.

portray all men as rapists, or rape as natural male behavior, and ignore all the ways in society that men suffer more than women.

All men as rapists? Sources? Rape as "natural" is evo psych pseudoscience nonsense that feminists roundly reject as malarkey. And how can you say all the ways when there is a trailer, right there, as one example of way in which we are raising awareness (which is the the opposite of ignoring, btw) of ways in which men uniquely suffer.

[–]themountaingoat1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Marc Lépine and Anders Brevik

Nothing to do with the MRM, even if their ideas are somewhat similar, no MRA's condone their actions.

Thomas Ball set himself on fire, hardly as bad as killing other people and he didn't advocate killing all women, unlike solanis.

Please at least attempt to make arguments in good faith. You cannot just lump random killers in with the MRM.

This isn't some half-washed conspiracy theory about who calls the shots, it is evidenced by who in positions of power and influence, and how they're leveraging it.

There are many jewish people in position of power. It doesn't follow that they got their unfairly, that they are conspiring to keep others out, or that they are advocating only for other jewish people and have a malicious agenda.

The same thing goes of the men in positions of power. There is less difference between protocols of the elders of Zion and patriarchy than you want to believe.

This is just int he Western World we aren't even touching the rest of the globe with child brides, women not being allowed to drive and women as property.

Yet these men who are treating women so terribly somehow work more hours at more dangerous jobs and put laws into place that cause them to die defending their countries, and generally protect women. Maybe things are more complicated than you want to admit.

There are good reasons why men are the majority of positions of power. Men generally sacrifice more for their careers by doing things like working more hours, being more willing to relocate, and taking more risks. In order to be in the top of any field you generally need to sacrifice a huge amount, so men's greater propensity to sacrifice the other areas of their lives for work give would naturally lead to many more men in the positions at the absolute top.

Courts can't be expected to award what they're not asked to.

Your whole next paragraph makes a huge mistake by counting joint and primary custody as the same thing. If a father doesn't have at least joint custody he is basically excluded from the childs life, and hasn't in any sense won the case. In order to do a fair comparison you need to look at the rates at which mothers get primary custody when they seek it compared to fathers. For all you know fathers could only win custody when the mother doesn't want it.

The high success rate of fathers does not by itself establish gender bias against women. Additional evidence, however, indicates that women may be less able to afford the lawyers and experts needed in contested custody cases (see “Family Law Overview”) and that, in contested cases, different and stricter standards are applied to mothers."

Conclusions based upon flawed methodology mean nothing, especially coming from feminists. There are many studies reaching the opposite conclusion.

It's just that MRA' think that they have the right to say men should have access to women's abuse shelters ignoring the fact there are in fact resources for men.

Or maybe Men's shelters deserve some funding? But the main point, that feminists minimize domestic violence against men by their use of statistics you conveniently didn't respond to.

All men as rapists?

Rape culture comes pretty close to saying that rape only happens because men support it, and feminist posters against rape imply that the default man is a rapist.

And how can you say all the ways when there is a trailer, right there, as one example of way in which we are raising awareness (which is the the opposite of ignoring, btw) of ways in which men uniquely suffer.

All the real ways in which men suffer. This movie is total bullcrap, and serves largely to let feminists pretend to care about men while blaming men for their own problems and ignoring all the real problems (many of the caused by feminism) that men face.

[–]UnconfirmedCat1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]themountaingoat1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]UnconfirmedCat1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]themountaingoat1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]UnconfirmedCat1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

First you say:

These things would go much better if you had actual reasons for your beliefs, and made actual arguments.

To which I reply I've done just that, over and over again.

Then you say:

Oh, you actually believe that crap?

It's like I'm debating a 12 year old.

Attributing random killers with no connection to the MRM of being MRA's and showing the movement supports violence?

Those men were active, virulent anti-feminists. Additionally, this entire subreddit and movement is predicted on that notion. Warren Farrel was a self-identified feminist for many years until he was kicked out for rejecting fundamentals like male privilege and patriarchy theory. The MRM is built on knee-jerking and hurt feelings. When kloo first created this place, and the subsequent years later until 2012 this sub proudly proclaimed "pissing off feminists since 2008". Talk about bullshit here. You're pretty funny.

Is this really why you believe Valerie Solanis doesn't mean feminism is more hateful than the MRM?

I love how all you can point to in the entire, multi-faceted movement of feminism is Solanis. It's a classic trope you cling to and displays your ignorance on the entire subject you're arguing. Do you actually know anything about feminism you haven't learned from such unbiased sources lie A Voice for men? Something tells me that you've never read any feminist literature on your own and then rejected it instead but are coasting on regurgitated talking points on some blog somewhere. It's almost adorable in it's naivete if it weren't so sad.

[–]themountaingoat0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Then you say:

Sorry, I just assumed you wouldn't be stupid enough to think that a group is responsible for the actions of everyone else who shares some beliefs with them. I guess I gave you too much credit.

Those men were active, virulent anti-feminists.

By that logic everyone who is against communism is a supporter of Nazism.

Additionally, this entire subreddit and movement is predicted on that notion. Warren Farrel was a self-identified feminist for many years until he was kicked out for rejecting fundamentals like male privilege and patriarchy theory. The MRM is built on knee-jerking and hurt feelings. When kloo first created this place, and the subsequent years later until 2012 this sub proudly proclaimed "pissing off feminists since 2008". Talk about bullshit here. You're pretty funny.

None of this is relevant to the fact that feminism welcome's those who advocate and actually carry out violence against men into the fold.

Nice attempt to bring up irrelevant facts though. This is the crap that makes these discussions go on so long.

Warren Farrel was a self-identified feminist for many years until he was kicked out for rejecting fundamentals like male privilege and patriarchy theory.

With good reason. But this is a separate discussion. We can discuss this, but first admit the fact that the MRM hasn't supported people like solanis that advocate mass murder and actually attempt to kill people, unlike feminism.

pissing off feminists since 2008

This is a very good thing. Read the sidebar for all the bad things feminists do. Someone needs to stop them.

I love how all you can point to in the entire, multi-faceted movement of feminism is Solanis.

Solanis is merely a convenient example. I am not basing my opinion of feminism solely or even predominantly on her, I am just using her to attempt to show you that feminism is far more hateful than the MRM, and to argue that this should be troubling.

Do you actually know anything about feminism you haven't learned from such unbiased sources lie A Voice for men?

More than you do probably. I formed most of the same opinions as the people in the MRM independently and before I even knew the MRM existed, solely through applying reason to statements feminists make.

And please, don't just make random statements in response to a point. If you can't address it, concede the point and them start another discussion. Changing the subject does not make your views any less wrong.

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

[–]UnconfirmedCat1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

the constant media blitz, fully endorsed by mainstream feminism, encouraging people to think that men are inherently rapists, child abusers, and misogynists, thus carrying forward the idea that if a man doesn't suppress his inner nature such negative aspects will come out.

I am very, very active in feminist circles and I have no clue what you're referring to here. Can you please give me a few examples? Are you confusing with people attacking men as a group for behaviors or men personally? Are you alleging that men are not responsible for most violent crime? How many school shootings have been at the hands of women? Who endorses this violence, and who does it serve? There are claims of male disposablity. Who are men disposing themselves for, the great matriarchal government headed by Madame President and her horde of cackling female CEOs and senators?

[–]Terraneaux0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]UnconfirmedCat0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Terraneaux1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–]UnconfirmedCat1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]RubixCubeDonut0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]UnconfirmedCat1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Anon9742 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Clearlylegit -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]texasjoe 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]Hifen 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Ripowal 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]nwz123 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]SilencingNarrative 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]Jenni53 37 points38 points39 points 13 years ago (55 children) | Copy Link

[–]UnconfirmedCat 20 points21 points22 points 13 years ago (46 children) | Copy Link

[–]HappyGerbil884 points 13 years ago* [recovered] (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]UnconfirmedCat 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Did you watch it? It said society many times over, both men and women live in society. So no, it did not say men were only responsible. It focused on boys using male voices because that's where the meaningful behavior policing comes from, but also where the so much of the solution lies. This film is about men and boys, and how men and boys can hurt, but more importantly help one another. This is conversation for them, and by them. The responses to this here have been incredible, nowhere in that film has anyone demonized men or boys, it's demonized the messages that harm them. It's actually cares deeply about their welfare and seeks to look for ways to end so manly deep systemic issues that are actively harming them every single day. It talking about men showing each other that talking about things together rather than repressing them is good, that you don't have to be a macho stud to be a man, that saying I love you to your children as a father is powerful for both father and son. These behaviors have been pathologized as weak and female traditionally and that saying the opposite of that, being emotionless and not emotionally supportive is therefore male. This. Actively. Harms. Men.

[–]HappyGerbil881 points 13 years ago* [recovered] (5 children) | Copy Link

It said society many times over, both men and women live in society.

Yes, but Feminists believe that men run society ("The Patriarchy"), and when they dealt with specific examples of people being told to man up, every single one came from a man.

it's demonized the messages that harm them.

And it has shown that 100% of these messages only come from men.

talking about men showing each other that talking about things together rather than repressing them is good, that you don't have to be a macho stud to be a man, that saying I love you to your children as a father is powerful for both father and son.

Again, implying that it's only men who put this pressure on men. It doesn't need to talk about women showing men that it's okay for us not to be manly? The film is basically saying "It's okay for men not to be super-manly around other men" and ignoring the issue of most women still expecting men to be manly around women. Gender roles in dating and relationships, perpetuated largely by women, are a huge source of the pressure men face to "man up," but that is not addressed at all in the film, or at least not in the preview. Again, 100% of the voices telling men to "man up" are other men, sending a pretty strong message that either women don't do this, or that there's nothing wrong when women do it, only when other men do it.

[–]UnconfirmedCat -5 points-4 points-3 points 13 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

Are you implying men don't run the world? Really? Look at those in power, who is making and enforcing laws globally? Who is setting norms and also enforcing them? Who always has? Who has written history, who has always had power? Who had had control of whats been printed and disseminated and now televised? Who has been writing our textbooks for hundreds of years? Who has created militaries and sent those men to fight? Who benefits from all of this? Maybe other rich and powerful men? And you're saying our deeply entrenched gender roles don't come from anywhere? They just "are"? How much history and current news do you need to deny? No, they're codified behavior that even parts of the world are written in law.

Are you surprised women have been influenced and consciously and unconsciously support these norms when it's totally endemic to society? These messages do come from our male centered and male driven society on an institutional level, and traditional conservatives that drive the MRM would like it to remain that way. They'd like stoic fighting violent isolated men disconnected from each other and their own emotions whose burden of bread winning rests solely on their shoulders, with women subservient in the kitchen and having babies and seeking men who then they themselves become resources with women not being able to earn income or own property and keep women dependent on them, and god help any gay person in this dynamic. When we harp on regressive Islamic practices for example, of arresting a couple holding hands or stoning a rape victim, or executing gays, or promoting brutal violence against it's own people, we in the Western world can be horrified. But their laws are based in Ibrahimic traditions just as the US is with Judeo-Christian principles and codes of conduct. See our rape and abortion laws, the struggle of gay rights, and our own celebrated violence and military culture.

Feminism seeks to end thousands of years of repression by ending archaic harmful practices such as gender roles and the forced behavior it requires. It sees the problems and finds another way, it seeks to lift people up rather than keep them in repressive little boxes. It says I can be the breadwinner and like changing the oil in my car while still calling myself a woman, and that men can change diapers and be nurturing, and show affection and still be strong men. It says I am not destined to become a mother to be a real woman, and that men deserve paternity leave. It says a little boy can wear a dress, and a little girl can be a football star. It seeks to remove gender from behavior which is at the heart of keeping us all down in very insidious and harmful ways.

[–]ragingpineapple 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

There's so much wrong with this post.

Are you implying men don't run the world?

Men are often placed at the head of the table in exchange for the responsibility they're saddled with. That exchange, "power" for safety, culpability for innocence, has been the social contract in most civilizations throughout our history. It has a very practical advantage when living in a world that is not "safe" as we have now, that is not "easy" as we have now. Looking back at it through the lens of someone who has never known the kinds of hardships our species has been made to endure and conquer is asinine. It was the arrangement that allowed us, in western societies, to be so wildly successful. It's the arrangement that still makes some sort of sense for populations today that are still struggling with what we've already overcome. It's why you feminists have such a hard time pushing into minority and poor communities even in the west. Those people are concerned about surviving in a sense that middle/upper-class white women alive today have very little exposure with.

Look at those in power, who is making and enforcing laws globally?

Depends on where you are, but here in the States it's marginally woman moreso than men who are voting legislation in. Elsewhere? Dated scripture. You can't just look across the pond with western lenses and claim that what you see is strictly indication of men running the show. CEO's are beholden to their shareholders in the same way elected officials are beholden to their constituents. If you think the gender of the person making those decisions matters, vote for the other gender. You don't get to complain about men holding onto top positions while also being part of the largest gender voting block in the country. And again, if you're going to compare what we have here in the west and extrapolate it to what happens in the rest of the world, then you're ignorantly disregarding any and all context that would have otherwise allowed you to understanding why those situations exist. Feminism stops short of asking why when the questions get hard, or when the answers may just counter any theory of a patriarchy beyond the literal meaning of the word.

Who is setting norms and also enforcing them?

Men and women.

Who always has?

Men and women.

Who has written history, who has always had power?

Two unrelated questions. 1) Mostly men, and no it isn't because of "patriarchy", 2) Define "power", otherwise I'm going to say men and women have each had their own abilities to exert power in different contexts. Looking at heads of states, heads of tribes, heads of family and drawing the line that that is the only source of power and that women were helpless or complacent for tens of thousands of years is willfully ignorant.

Who had had control of whats been printed and disseminated and now televised?

Men and women. In fact, women are again the largest group marketers focus on television. If you want to complain that men who own media companies are controlling what you see on television, then perhaps you need to ask who it is, exactly, that they're catering to?

Who has been writing our textbooks for hundreds of years?

Is this question radically different than asking who has written our history? I'd say largely men, but I'd also repeat that it isn't because of "patriarchy".

Who has created militaries and sent those men to fight?

Men and women. You don't actually believe men risk their lives because it's fun, do you? Even under some patriarchal figurehead? Ask yourself why men have been willing to toss themselves headlong into a bullet or spear. If you're answer is "patriarchy" then you're ignorant of the human condition, you're ignorant of male thought and emotion, and you're ignorant of the reality men have historically faced. In a nutshell, you're doing it wrong.

Who benefits from all of this? Maybe other rich and powerful men?

WOMEN, and a small portion of men.

And you're saying our deeply entrenched gender roles don't come from anywhere?

Oh, they come from somewhere alright. As I said before, feminism stops short of trying to explain where and why exactly they sprung forth. Evo-psych is unprovable! So we'll just assume men oppressed women, just cause. It's ridiculous. You either have to admit that in a historical context women really are inferior, which lead to men being able to systematically oppress them, and that this same outcome was achieved independently in most societies throughout history, and that those same patriarchal woman-hating societies just decided to give up that control when women came out and asked for it, -OR- that maybe, just maybe, what you see when you look back was an arrangement that worked to benefit women somehow, and society at large benefited from the rigid gender division, with men at the head of the table and saddling responsibility of not only themselves but for women as well. That maybe, your survival as a woman was worth giving up a degree of autonomy when looking at the historical context, until such time that we had advanced to the point where we didn't need to have the gender divisions so heavily enforced.

They just "are"?

No, and I think feminism's explanation that gender roles just "are" because of "patriarchy" is equally ridiculous.

How much history and current news do you need to deny?

The irony, it burns.

There was enough wrong with your first paragraph that I'm not even going to attempt to address the other two. You're not at a point to have a discussion with the majority of men in this subreddit yet. Spend more time reading and understanding how and why we view things differently around here, and you won't have to waste time regurgitating the same tired crap that men here have heard their entire lives. There's numerous threads that you can find that explain our views. Repeating the bs we've already dismissed isn't going to win feminism anymore white knights from here.

I'd also appreciate it if anyone reading this can help bump UnconfirmedCat up, because while they're wrong and grating, nothing they said is worth censoring.

Edit: At least in this post. Reading further down they're calling someone a pedo and rape apologist. Meh.

[–]UnconfirmedCat -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Men are often placed at the head of the table in exchange for the responsibility they're saddled with. That exchange, "power" for safety, culpability for innocence, has been the social contract in most civilizations throughout our history.

Yes, because women weren't allowed access to education, work outside the home, their own income, or her own property. She was the property. Hell, this held fast into the late 1960's when a woman still needed her father's or husband's signature to open a checking account. She also gave up her own credit score when she got married. You're implying that women haven't longed for their own autonomy since the beginning, but are instead looking for easy street and a man to take care of them. I wonder how much fun you'd have as a kept man, property of your wife with no access to education or your own money. Yeah, didn't think so.

It was the arrangement that allowed us, in western societies, to be so wildly successful.

Well, of course it's allowed men to be wildly successful. You have a wife at home supporting you, you're receiving unpaid labor and emotional support wrapped up into one. For the longest time, and still in most of the world, the wife's role has been one of subservient caretaker, to cook and clean for her man, to bear and raise his children, allowing him the ability to be successful. Without that support, how far could men have advanced? How far could women have further helped society without being saddled with child rearing and the caring of the young, sick and elderly, the keeping of hearth and home without even being able to read. Funny, once we've been allowed access to education, we've excelled and have contributed quite a bit to the things like the Sciences.

If you think the gender of the person making those decisions matters, vote for the other gender. You don't get to complain about men holding onto top positions while also being part of the largest gender voting block in the country.

I actually do factor that in as a part of my choices, as it matters to me to have my voice represented. And without highlighting the rest of your diatribe, you're insinuating there are equal number of candidates for people to choose from and that all of us women are just simply choosing men. I wish that were true! What's actually the case here, is that politics is a mans game. The times a woman's appearance rather than her platform and ideologies are critiqued, even by fellow women. Form her hairstyle to her pantsuits. The standards are higher, and she has to be much more chaste than your common male philanderer which is written off as "boys will be boys!". This is a contributing favtor to the dearth of condidates, as well as the expectaion for American women to be uber mothers (meaning all the childcare and domestic work) as well as a working women. So, when faced with that chouice, many choose thier kids. Male politicians aren't expected to be uber fathers, going to every soccer game and boy scout meeting, in fact the absent workaholic father is a common, forgiven role in society. Leaving the raising of his family to his wife, which then stunts her success in the public sector. This is why feminists really love egalitarian households where dad actively parents and pitches in, it allows us to live the way men are afforded in our society, in a nutshell. Talk about ignoring context and burning irony.

Who is setting norms and also enforcing them? Men and women. Who always has? Men and women. Who has written history, who has always had power?

God, this sounds like utopia, but as I have already laid out, this is not the case, not even now, not even close.

Is this question radically different than asking who has written our history? I'd say largely men, but I'd also repeat that it isn't because of "patriarchy".

What pray tell is it then? I mean it's not really a big deal, it's just the writing of textbooks that educate and inform young minds.

Two unrelated questions. 1) Mostly men, and no it isn't because of "patriarchy"

Ok, I'll bite, what is it?

2) Define "power"

Power in the most literal definition. Power means being able to shape policy and enforce those policies on an institutional level. And the influence that comes with it.

Looking at heads of states, heads of tribes, heads of family and drawing the line that that is the only source of power and that women were helpless or complacent for tens of thousands of years is willfully ignorant.

I'm sorry, where else does that leave women? And I'd add priests, rabbis and imams to that list. Care to elaborate?

when you look back was an arrangement that worked to benefit women somehow, and society at large benefited from the rigid gender division, with men at the head of the table and saddling responsibility of not only themselves but for women as well. That maybe, your survival as a woman was worth giving up a degree of autonomy when looking at the historical context, until such time that we had advanced to the point where we didn't need to have the gender divisions so heavily enforced.

Just wow. No, this clearly did not benefit woemn, or else there'd never be a need for a cause like feminism! How can you be so blind! I also like how you wanted me to choose between two false choices of saying that woemn are either inferior or benefiting from oppression. That's really special.

Repeating the bs we've already dismissed isn't going to win feminism anymore white knights from here.

You can't be serious. You're calling your fellow men white knights lolz, and claiming that I am uninformed of the MRM, the hows and whys! I pretty much gave a basket full of all kinds of hows and whys though.

Who has created militaries and sent those men to fight? Men and women. You don't actually believe men risk their lives because it's fun, do you?

Where did I ever infer that fighting was fun? My father fought in Vietnam and struggles with PTSD, just like my cousin a retired staff sergeant in the USMC that was injured in Iraq and has the same issues.

Ask yourself why men have been willing to toss themselves headlong into a bullet or spear.

Well, the men in my family has fought for many reasons, some to escape an abusive home, others to get out of a dead end job and take advantage the military grants in exchange for your life and sometimes your sanity. Others have chosen to just land big planes on air craft carriers as part of a boyhood dream. My father had nowhere to turn with his emotions and ran away to the Army, my cousin felt he wasn't going to make anything of himself quote "as a man" so off the Marines he went, and my other cousin basically loves the theater of war. It's all tied into masculinity and therefore gender role and therefore the patriarchy. Sorry.

Who benefits from all of this? Maybe other rich and powerful men? WOMEN, and a small portion of men.

I laughed so hard I dropped my popsicle! I invite you to read War Is a Racket written by retired United States Marine Corps Major General and two time Medal of Honor recipient Smedley D. Butler in 1935. The point of the amazing read it that war is for profit, and those profits go to major corporations. Our government, and those corporations are (surprise!) run by men. So, I have no idea where women winning in this deal factor in. Did you know the original Mother's Day was started as an anti-war protest by suffragettes?.

[–]squirtlekin 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

What you said in your previous comment:

Did you watch it? It said society many times over, both men and women live in society.

What you said in this comment:

Are you implying men don't run the world? Really? Look at those in power, who is making and enforcing laws globally? Who is setting norms and also enforcing them? Who always has? Who has written history, who has always had power? Who had had control of whats been printed and disseminated and now televised? Who has been writing our textbooks for hundreds of years? Who has created militaries and sent those men to fight? Who benefits from all of this? Maybe other rich and powerful men? And you're saying our deeply entrenched gender roles don't come from anywhere? They just "are"? How much history and current news do you need to deny?

Is everything you're saying just a rhetorical device?

[–]UnconfirmedCat -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]UnconfirmedCat 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]UnconfirmedCat -4 points-3 points-2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]takahashi1989 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]UnconfirmedCat 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]themountaingoat -4 points-3 points-2 points 13 years ago (30 children) | Copy Link

[–]GermanDude 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]UnconfirmedCat 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago* (28 children) | Copy Link

That's actually the opposite of true. It's incredibly destructive to tell men and boys that being caring and outward with emotions is feminine and therefore bad and "not manly". When little girls act masculine and are tomboys, it's celebrated. When little boys act feminine and say, want to wear nail polish, that is shamed and pathologized and he's termed a Sissy or Nancy Boy. Men and boys entitled to be who they are, and not be squished into some narrow box of what a "man" should be. Did you watch the trailer posted? It's not even 5 mins long, and you might want to you know, watch it, as that's where this image comes from...

And as far as your assertions that it helps with women, well I am one and I can tell you the opposite is true there also. I value a man who is connected to his feelings, one that doesn't thrive on machismo, one that doesn't see things like "women's work" and who wants to actively parent and cares to nurture children, as well as other great stuff like cooking. We hurt everyone when we put people into gendered defined boxes, period.

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

And as far as your assertions that it helps with women, well I am one and I can tell you the opposite is true there also. I value a man who is connected to his feelings, one that doesn't thrive on machismo, one that doesn't see things like "women's work" and who wants to actively parent and cares to nurture children, as well as other great stuff like cooking. We hurt everyone when we put people into gendered defined boxes, period.

It's incredibly easy to lie to yourself about what you really want, especially if you don't really have to deal with other peoples feelings. However I doubt you would like a man whose feelings were those of extreme jealousy or insecurity and demanded that you always let him know where you were, or a man who insisted on having sex whenever he wanted because otherwise he didn't feel valued. Or what if a man's feelings were of being in competition with other men all the time, and so being macho was an expression of those feelings.

When women say they want a man who is open about his feelings they only mean the positive feelings they like, feelings like "I love you so much" and things like that. They are unwilling to take the side of male feelings that doesn't fit in with what they want, and so they dismiss them. Ironically, by demanding that men not be traditionally masculine you are dismissing those feelings that are probably some of the most important ones to men, and demanding that they show feelings more similar to what you want them too.

[–]UnconfirmedCat -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

I doubt you would like a man whose feelings were those of extreme jealousy or insecurity and demanded that you always let him know where you were, or a man who insisted on having sex whenever he wanted because otherwise he didn't feel valued. Or what if a man's feelings were of being in competition with other men all the time, and so being macho was an expression of those feelings.

Don't you see those are all ill side-effects of toxic masculinity? I'd address the feelings of extreme insecurity and jealously and where that stems from. I'd have you try to find why he felt like some slave to his libido and who tells him that he is. I'd want to know what I could do to help him with always feeling like he is in competition with other men, and who enforces that. Where do macho attitudes come from and who do they harm? Most importantly, why are all of these things termed "masculine"?

Also, I want you to know I have had conversations with men I have loved over the years, and I cannot tell you how close it made us. How connected we felt, the feeling of understanding. Only an immature person, man or women would only want to hear about feelings that are positive or that benefit them, and that's what you're accusing all women of when you make those assertions. That's simply not the case. I can say hands down one of our biggest complaints is that how sad and frustrating it is knowing how hard it is for so many men to open up and fight those messages that doing so is a sign of weakness, that he has to wear a mask of stoicism at all times to be a real man. That's simply not true.

[–]themountaingoat 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Don't you see those are all ill side-effects of toxic masculinity?

Oh, so now you know where my feelings come from now do you?

What you are saying is that you would "fix" all of his feelings. Speaking as a guy, these feelings are not a result of anything pathological, they are just natural male feelings, that come largely from biology. You can't fix them, all you can do is deal with them. And men can expect no help at all in dealing with them from women. Women will do what you say you would do, and attempt to fix them, probably by saying things that are just not true and ignoring the way relationships between the genders actually work.

Also, I want you to know I have had conversations with men I have loved over the years, and I cannot tell you how close it made us.

I don't think you can know how it made the man feel.

Only an immature person, man or women would only want to hear about feelings that are positive or that benefit them, and that's what you're accusing all women of when you make those assertions.

Yea, and it is basically true. Men are seen as controlling assholes if they get jealous, as toxic masculine and macho if they are competitive, and as basically rapists if they want women to have sex with them a lot. Men expressing their emotions is basically labelled as being a domestic abuser by feminists.

I can say hands down one of our biggest complaints is that how sad and frustrating it is knowing how hard it is for so many men to open up and fight those messages that doing so is a sign of weakness, that he has to wear a mask of stoicism at all times to be a real man.

Again, you don't want real male emotions, you want fake ones, and think that the real male emotions must somehow be pathological or something that you can fix. You said as much in this post.

I have opened up to many women about my emotions, and they generally just see them as a problem, or think I am an asshole because sex is important to me and I am often in competition with other men.

[–]UnconfirmedCat -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

Speaking as a guy, these feelings are not a result of anything pathological, they are just natural male feelings, that come largely from biology.

Sorry to hear that you've accepted some pseudoscience somewhere along the line to believe that. Couldn't be further from the truth, and also citations please, I can wait.

I have opened up to many women about my emotions, and they generally just see them as a problem, or think I am an asshole because sex is important to me and I am often in competition with other men.

I imagine you open up to them about these issues, which seem to be problems, i.e. extreme jealously and insecurity then you say that they can't be fixed and that you, and they, should just deal with them? Sounds like you actually embrace traditional gender roles, and I imagine will throw some crock pot evolutionary psychology (which has about as much credibility scientifically as phrenology) at me. You like what these traditional gender roles and subsequent behaviors afford you, except when you don't. Sounds like someone wants to have their cake, and eat it too. Either you get real and realize that saying it's "biology" is a laughable cop out, or you stay right were you are, jealous, insecure, isolated and afraid here in the arms of the MRM.

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

Couldn't be further from the truth, and also citations please

So you can just make unsubstantiated claims, but when I disagree with them I need citations?

Where is your evidence that male feelings are not from biology?

Anyone who has studied evolution at all knows that we have strong reasons to expect different behavior in men and women, just like men and women have different bodies. Read the selfish gene, or the red queen effect if you want to learn about biology. (although you probably won't consider evolutionary biologists arguments to be at all valid, since they aren't feminists)

I imagine you open up to them about these issues

I notice you conveniently ignore the other points and exaggerate the way in which I presented the issues. I never said extreme jealousy, but any jealousy is quite normal, and if you notice whenever men are jealous the reaction of women is "how dare he slut shame me or attempt to control my behavior, I should be able to flirt with as many other men as I like". Hardly something that encourages men to open up.

Or the fact that men need sex more than women in order to feel valued in a relationship. Women feel they shouldn't have to even consider when their partner wants to have sex, and men feeling upset when they are rejected is considered by some to be manipulating women into sex and therefore rape. So basically men have to ignore their need for sex in relationships or else be rapists. And you tell men to open up while supporting feminism. The hypocrisy is ridiculous.

Or he fact that men are told from a young age that "objectifying" women is wrong. Men are naturally more visual, and being told that the way they are attracted to people is wrong is hardly makes men want to open up.

Sounds like you actually embrace traditional gender roles

I think there is a lot to be said for traditional gender roles, since they basically seem to be exactly what we have nowadays except men actually received some advantages. I see no reason to think that women will ever not demand that men fit into traditional gender roles.

or you stay right were you are, jealous, insecure, isolated and afraid here in the arms of the MRM.

I am actually doing quite fine thank you and have dealt with my issues despite a total lack of respect for them from women. I find it funny that you use my emotions to attack me right after saying that men should open up more. Your behavior here is typical of the way women treat men when they open up.

[–]UnconfirmedCat 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

So you can just make unsubstantiated claims, but when I disagree with them I need citations?

See, this is the rules of debate, when one makes assertions, they need citations to back up their claims. You asserted it's is biology when I stated that gender is a social construct and listed sources. I expect the same if this is an an authentic discussion.

if you notice whenever men are jealous the reaction of women is "how dare he slut shame me or attempt to control my behavior, I should be able to flirt with as many other men as I like". Hardly something that encourages men to open up.

Holy straw...lady, Batman. Who is saying this? What context is this is?

Or the fact that men need sex more than women in order to feel valued in a relationship. Women feel they shouldn't have to even consider when their partner wants to have sex, and men feeling upset when they are rejected is considered by some to be manipulating women into sex and therefore rape. So basically men have to ignore their need for sex in relationships or else be rapists. And you tell men to open up while supporting feminism. The hypocrisy is ridiculous.

Uhm, wow. I am not sure you're aware of how much emotional projection you're revealing right now, and It kind of makes me feel...sad that this is how you think normal, healthy hetero (in this context) relationships work. I sincerely have no words here. I must say, it's clear you've never dated a feminist of any stripe, and are really, really into "bio truths" about all men "requiring" a lot of sex while women are fickle sexless creatures bent on emotional manipulation. Like, wow. If this is how your relationships play out, then I am am sincerely sorry. I've never had anything resembling this, in fact the last one I was just in, I was the one with the higher libido as he was completing his masters and just drained, and basically emotionally unavailable in his stress. We worked it out and thing are fantastic, less stress, more sex, master's complete! I digress..

Men are naturally more visual, and being told that the way they are attracted to people is wrong is hardly makes men want to open up.

Again, that's socialization at work. Imagine being a woman, with Reddit's outlier of r/ladyboners as a rare exception, you rarely see anything for the female gaze, when the male gaze is all over movies, TV and even books. It's from that point of view, and it's pervasive, and simply accepted as the norm. Women too could be made just as visually stimulated, but instead society has valued chastity in women for basically a millennia, and the make eye candy is a very new thing in comparison. Even still, despite not being represented and enforced, we still actually re sexual creatures that do get visually stimulated, yet we relate to men not as objects for our personal gratification, also because there is a risk to women from PIV sex ie pregnancy that men do not share biologically.

I think there is a lot to be said for traditional gender roles, since they basically seem to be exactly what we have nowadays except men actually received some advantages.

Well, duh of course! You received, and still receive advantages (a sort of privilege for being born a man, as it were) from traditional gender roles which is why they are considered conservative values.

I see no reason to think that women will ever not demand that men fit into traditional gender roles.

Waves jumping up and down pointing at Feminism We exist in huge numbers, and are actually accomplishing stuff, so. pretty sure you're wrong there too.

I find it funny that you use my emotions to attack me right after saying that men should open up more. Your behavior here is typical of the way women treat men when they open up.

You were the one to say you were dealing with extreme jealousy and insecurity then you turned around and said it wasn't actually a problem, instead that the problem was on the women in your life not being able to handle "biology" and I explained why that might be treated as ridiculous and stupidly offensive to your fellow man, and woman.

[–]themountaingoat1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You asserted it's is biology when I stated that gender is a social construct and listed sources.

Uh no you didn't.

Who is saying this?

This is the standard reaction to men who get jealous. I guess you haven't been paying attention to how women react to it. These behaviors are also listed by police organizations as domestic violence when committed by a man.

Uhm, wow. I am not sure you're aware of how much emotional projection you're revealing right now, and It kind of makes me feel...sad that this is how you think normal, healthy hetero (in this context) relationships work.

I am obviously not going only from personal experience as that is always a small sample size and colored by confirmation bias. I am going based upon what I have heard women say, on reddit and elsewhere.

I've never had anything resembling this, in fact the last one I was just in, I was the one with the higher libido as he was completing his masters and just drained, and basically emotionally unavailable in his stress.

Whether you wanted more sex or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is how men are treated if they want more sex, and generally a lot of women expect sex to only be when they want it, without any need to consider their partners wishes.

Again, that's socialization at work.

What was that about citing sources again?

Imagine being a woman, with Reddit's outlier of r/ladyboners as a rare exception, you rarely see anything for the female gaze, when the male gaze is all over movies, TV and even books. It's from that point of view, and it's pervasive, and simply accepted as the norm. Women too could be made just as visually stimulated, but instead society has valued chastity in women for basically a millennia, and the make eye candy is a very new thing in comparison.

Funny that the covers of romance novels, which are for the female gaze, correspond to the way both men and women are portrayed in media for the male gaze.

Women too could be made just as visually stimulated, but instead society has valued chastity in women for basically a millennia, and the make eye candy is a very new thing in comparison.

Again, what was that about citing your sources and how proper arguments work?

All this is irrelevant BTW. Regardless of how prevalent things for the male gaze are that doesn't mean that men aren't told it is wrong to find women visually appealing.

and still receive advantages

What advantages do men receive these days?

Waves jumping up and down pointing at Feminism

LOL what a fucking joke. Feminism is constantly complaining for more money and help for women's problems, and totally ignores men's. This is exactly the benefits women traditionally had under traditionalism, being protected and helped and having their feelings and welfare being seen as more important than men's. Do you know anything about what feminism actually does? Read the sidebar if you haven't already (I would think that would be a basic starting point for anyone attempting to talk about gender relations).

You were the one to say you were dealing with extreme jealousy and insecurity

Not really. And that doesn't mean you should use it as a personal attack as you did.

[–]Terraneaux 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

His point is that society (Feminism at large included) punishes men for not fitting the unemotional, selfless, provider stereotype, and that it's better that men become able to handle society's rejection of their worth as a person earlier rather than later. Not that any of this is good or moral.

And as far as your assertions that it helps with women, well I am one and I can tell you the opposite is true there also. I value a man who is connected to his feelings, one that doesn't thrive on machismo, one that doesn't see things like "women's work" and who wants to actively parent and cares to nurture children, as well as other great stuff like cooking. We hurt everyone when we put people into gendered defined boxes, period.

And odds are that even though you say this, you still wouldn't feel comfortable marrying a man who made less than you.

[–]UnconfirmedCat -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Terraneaux -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

Odds are odds, and you as an exception doesn't change the fact that most women who identify as feminist still expect their male partner to provide for them.

You say that feminism seeks to end traditional gender roles, but feminism fundamentally failed to accurately describe what the gender roles were, in full. It certainly recognized the power that men had, and the obligations that women had, but they never recognized men's obligations or women's power in the traditional gender role system. When feminists agitate against speakers who are concerned about the suicide rate of young men, when they cry 'what about teh menz,' they're playing the same game that's been played for thousands of years: buck up, men, just because you're suffering doesn't mean you get to express it, it's women, children, and upper-class men whose lives actually matter, and you are only worth affection and respect if you have utility.

[–]UnconfirmedCat -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

You say that feminism seeks to end traditional gender roles, but feminism fundamentally failed to accurately describe what the gender roles were, in full.

What? Are seriously asserting that you lack understanding of what is traditionally referred to as "masculine" and "feminine", and that feminism had been able to adequately decribe them? Ok, I guess it's time for some 101 masculinity, femininity, society has classed certain behavior by gender and made them oppositional to each other. Our modern concepts of both are steeped in history, which as we all can agree, was dominated by men via the Church, philosophical and political movements. This is where the concept of the patriarchy comes from, the rule of the land by patriarchs setting standards and creating laws.

As these things have played out over the course of thousands and thousands of years, and with the injection of broader knowledge and a better understanding of things like, there is no "negro" or "lady" brain and that we're all equal. We seek to end archaic notions handed down from the Bronze Age regarding what men and women what masculinity and femininity actually is, and is not.

they're playing the same game that's been played for thousands of years: buck up, men, just because you're suffering doesn't mean you get to express it, it's women, children, and upper-class men whose lives actually matter, and you are only worth affection and respect if you have utility.

Again, this is the opposite of what feminism posits. Let me be clear, we are the last ones telling men to "buck up".

[–]Terraneaux -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

This is where the concept of the patriarchy comes from, the rule of the land by patriarchs setting standards and creating laws.

It's important to understand that the 'patriarchs,' as you call them, did not see women as their main opponent - they instead saw other men as such, and their laws reflect this. The average man you see on the street is not the inheritor of these patriarchs - what you call the 'patriarchy' was set up by and for the upper class, more than anything else. A lower class male has as much in common with the 'patriarchs' as a lower class woman does.

It's technically true to say that for most of history, political power was held primarily by men. But that's not to say that many men held political power, or even many white, straight, Christian, cisgender men - and that's where your theory of patriarchy becomes only tangentially related to real-world phenomena.

there is no "negro" or "lady" brain

I can't speak to differing qualities of neurology with respect to race, having no real knowledge of the subject, but it's just a fact that male and female brains develop differently. Saying anything else is just sticking your head in the sand with respect to biology. It's the same intellectual dishonesty a young earth creationist displays.

[–]UnconfirmedCat 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Terraneaux1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]UnconfirmedCat1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Terraneaux1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]UnconfirmedCat1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Terraneaux0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]CharlesAnonymousVII -3 points-2 points-1 points 13 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]UnconfirmedCat 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[+]CharlesAnonymousVII -6 points-5 points-4 points 13 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]UnconfirmedCat 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[+]CharlesAnonymousVII -6 points-5 points-4 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]UnconfirmedCat 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]CharlesAnonymousVII0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I am not looking for links from others.

Yet you expect everyone else here to be?

Why are you so afraid to share your own thoughts about this issue, why won't you even watch the trailer?

I never said I didn't watch it. And you also shouldn't (rather uncharitably) assume it's a matter of fear on my part. I already told you: it's a matter of me not wanting to waste my time on a video that is quite far removed from the real relevant disagreement, i.e., the ideological one, which arises from a more profound, philosophical divergence that can't be settled in a casual subthread. Moreover (and I sincerely don't say this to upset you), I doubt you're willing or sufficiently able to participate in a logically-rigorous argument over the abstract principles at hand here.

I offered you two links just in case your apparent interest in a discussion is genuine. If so, please, feel free to indulge your intellectual curiosity there. They're better writers than I am anyway, so you should be satisfied with that. Now, good night.

[–]UnconfirmedCat0 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You offered me two links, one to a traditional conservative blog, and another to one calling feminists harpies yet you have the audacity to say you're seeking a logically-rigorous argument?

quite far removed from the real relevant disagreement

In what way? These are very real issues, as the video displayed, I work in education and I see boys struggle like this daily and it's heartbreaking.

which arises from a more profound, philosophical divergence that can't be settled in a casual subthread

Why not? Where else are you proposing we have a rational discussion if not in this topical thread? Again it appears that you're using flowery language to dodge the issue. It's disappointing.

I doubt you're willing or sufficiently able to participate in a logically-rigorous argument over the abstract principles at hand here.

Where you extrapolating these judgments from? More so, why? All this hand waving is off to me, as I am not being dismissive to you because you're and MRA, even though I could if I wasn't seeking actual discussion. But that's inauthentic and a waste of time, as we could be enjoying a nice back and forth here instead. Too bad.

[–]themountaingoat1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]SouthrnComfort 12 points13 points14 points 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bluepillschool 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]letsgocrazy 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]SouthrnComfort 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]SCOTT_MESCUDI 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]SCOTT_MESCUDI 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]SCOTT_MESCUDI -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]SCOTT_MESCUDI -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I'd say that men have that option far more than men.

I'll assume you meant women.

The fact that women 'choose' not to go into certain fields isn't actually a choice, it's down to systematic oppression that's been in place for hundreds, or thousands of years.

Maybe women didn't want to or were physically incapable of doing certain jobs like hunting for food. Why do you think women became feminists at the time they did? Feminism started because of a rise in tertiary jobs, jobs that the average women were more capable of doing and that were safer.

I'd say there's no societal pressure for men to choose a certain career path. Yes, they're expected to be the bread winner in a lot of families/be the one earning a higher wage, but that is a direct result of patriarchy.

So societal pressure for women = societal pressure but societal pressure for men =/= societal pressure because...patriarchy?

People don't like the idea of "patriarchy" around here because the system doesn't solely benefit men and subordinate women like the feminist definition usually claims. Feminists take things that affect men and say they aren't an issue or is backfiring just because "patriarchy"

You see that women didn't occupy these more dangerous jobs that were in place for thousands of years of you think it's because men were stopping them? Maybe men wanted to take the safer less physically strenuous jobs but that wasn't an option because the women couldn't do it. You look at gender roles and all you see is women being forced out of fields through systematic oppression but you ignore that they may have chosen that more than not (they did) and you ignore that men were just as much if not more forced into the dangerous and more strenuous working role.

So

[–]Hifen 10 points11 points12 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]UnconfirmedCat 13 points14 points15 points 13 years ago* (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]fishing-for-downvote 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]UnconfirmedCat 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]HappyGerbil881 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]norfollk 18 points19 points20 points 13 years ago (23 children) | Copy Link

[+]HappyGerbil88 13 years ago* [recovered] (4 children) | Copy Link

More females report attempting suicide than men. Do you honestly believe that men who attempt suicide are ~10x more likely to succeed? It's not that hard to kill yourself. A lot of "suicide attempts" are cries for help, not legitimate attempts to end their life. Still a serious issue, sure, but not to the same extent. Obviously, guys aren't going to do the cry for help thing, because who would care?

In addition, men who fail probably rarely report it. It only counts as a suicide attempt if the guy admits it, otherwise it's an "accidental overdose" or something. Again, women would be far more likely to report it as attempted suicide than men.

[–]novarising 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]yngwin 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]jeffrey92 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]BuncyTheFrog 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]levelate 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]GermanDude 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Landarchist -3 points-2 points-1 points 13 years ago (14 children) | Copy Link

[–]EpsilonSilver 22 points23 points24 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]transgender_account 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]anakinastronaut 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

[–]transgender_account 7 points8 points9 points 13 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]transgender_account 4 points5 points6 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Landarchist 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]transgender_account 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Landarchist -5 points-4 points-3 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]transgender_account 6 points7 points8 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Bodertz 5 points6 points7 points 13 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

I am not /u/Landarchist

Are you only going to 'count' a suicide if it's successful?

How else would you count it?

Why do you say "males aren't lying"?

I think that failed suicide attempts of men/boys are reported less than those of women/girls, simply because of the directness of men/boys approach. Taking a bottle of aspirin to try to kill yourself is much more removed than shooting yourself in the head. Because of this, I think that men who don't want to die who attempt suicide will not be reported as much as women who attempts suicide, but don't want to die.

Because women who try to kill themselves by overdosing are choosing a method that is distant from the goal, I think that statistics that count these will let through people who don't actually want to die. Conversely, when men put guns to their heads, the directness of it will weed out those who want to live. If you can't pull the trigger, no-one finds you with a note resting on your chest, lying in your bed and listening to music, so it is not counted as a suicide attempt.

So, I don't think women are lying, just that they often want to live, but the distance of the action from the consequence helps them to go through with it.

[–]baxterg13 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThatCynicalCynicism 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -3 points-2 points-1 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

1) "Women and children first" was an exception, not a rule. Historically men are more likely to survive shipwrecks, and the actual rule in practice is to help children, the disabled and elderly. A study was completed in 2012 that debunked this myth you apparently still believe in.

2) Even if you were correct (which you aren't) and women were given "privilege" during shipwrecks, your view of history is incredibly... wrong. Immune from war, absolutely, but it was men in positions of power who sent younger men off to war, and women have been fighting to have a place as soldiers throughout history, while simultaneously fighting to stop wars. I can't think of a single other entitlement. Women had no voting rights, no rights to choose who they married, where they lived, how many kids they had to bear from their husband... rarely are their matriarchal societies or women in powerful positions throughout history. So please, enlighten me to the privilege and entitlement of women in history, because you've read some very different books than me.

[–]ThatCynicalCynicism 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Who invites you people?

Males are more biologically dispensable than females. This is a biological fact, and it makes "male privilege" very unlikely. To give entitlements and privileges to men when it's women who are more biologically indispensable would be unwise, and our ancestors clearly recognized this. This is why men died in the millions in war, and why women didn't.

Of course, women may have campaigned to fight in the wars themselves, but denying them this opportunity/responsibility is hardly oppression. Especially when you consider that men throughout history often didn't have a choice in the matter.

As for voting; men didn't have the vote for long before women got it. This is a historical fact that you seem to miss. The reason voting was once limited to men (and before that: to landowning men) was because men were once the head of the household, and this wasn't merely a privilege, it was a responsibility. Men were even liable if their wife committed a crime, as opposed to the wife herself.

I'm not sure if I'm aware of the 2012 study you bring up but don't reference, but if it was conducted by Feminists, I'll have to doubt it's veracity. Feminists are notorious for dishonesty.

[+][deleted] -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

I'm pretty sure men were sent off to war because they are physically stronger, thus making them better for fighting on foot. Nowadays the playing field is more equal because we do not have as much up close combat.

Men have had the right to vote in every country (think outside of the US) since voting was a thing. Yes, it had to be extended to males of color. And even then, women still had to earn the right to vote. You said so yourself, men owned property, thus had to vote. Know why? Because women couldn't own property!

Reference: http://www.uu.se/en/news/news-document/?id=1638&area=2,3,10,16&typ=pm&na=&lang=en It was done by a university, not feminists. And clearly you have a problem with feminists, when you shouldn't. They are for men's rights too, you know. New age feminism is centered on equality.

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

Men are physically stronger, but I think it's important to recognize why this is. Why do you suppose men evolved to become physically stronger than women if it was women that faced the most hardship?

If one examines the evolution behind this, the answer to the question becomes obvious, and it's because males are the dispensable sex. This is what the concept of "male disposability" refers to, and why the Feminist idea of "male privilege" is a widely believed myth.

I'll give you a hypothetical tale of 2 tribes to illustrate this concept. One where most of the males are wiped out, and one where most of the females are wiped out.

The tribe where most of the males are wiped out could theoretically continue as normal from a reproductive standpoint. It would just mean that many of the women would have to share a single man. The tribe where most of the females are wiped out however, could not carry on as normal. It would lead to a population bottleneck, and in an environment where different tribes are competing for resources, such a tribe would be severely disadvantaged. This is why the survival of females was prioritized throughout our evolutionary history, and why natural selection was harder on males as a result. Ergo: males evolved to become physically stronger to cope with the harsh environments that humans once had to deal with.

This is where the Titanic comes into it. Greater male survival rates doesn't automatically mean that their survival was prioritized. It could simply speak to the fact that males are stronger, and therefore more able to survive in difficult situations. This is perhaps why such a women and children first policy could have existed on the Titanic in the first place. It is part of chivalry that men ought to protect and provide for women, and this is demonstrably a privilege for women.

Personally, I'm not complaining about the concept of "female privilege" per se since I think it was once necessary for women to have these privileges. Today however, I think this biological/cultural imperative has become maladaptive due to technology, and since the industrial revolution, women haven't really needed preferential treatment in my estimation. Yet, many of them still expect it, and this is where one must ask why. If Feminism was so concerned about rights and freedoms, why do most of it's campaigns consist of lobbying for more and more government programs which benefit women? The same support for big-government is not seen in their detractors, and it's generally not seen from MRAs either. I think this is because men and women are fundamentally different, and Feminism is simply an exploit of the biologically and culturally ingrained gynocentrism that was once an aid to our survival, and it does so for little more than material gain.

Of course, I think equality is a good idea in principle, but it needs to be defined. I would say that I support equality of opportunity, whereas it seems to me that many Feminists support equality of outcome.

unequal outcomes =/= unequal opportunities

I suppose this leaves us with democracy, which was once incredibly limited. However throughout most of history, it was mostly limited due to class, not sex. Women in wealthy social classes lived far more privileged lives than 98% of the men alive at the time. Furthermore, these privileges were not built by them, but instead given to them by their wealthy and powerful husbands. I hardly think it's right to complain that the property they took advantage of wasn't in their name, and that they were denied the vote like the vast majority of men at the time who lived in far far worse conditions. Working men were eventually given the vote, but only because they fought in wars in exchange for such an entitlement. During the early 20th Century, campaigners for the women's vote had to do no such thing.

Anyway, this ended up being pretty long, but in summary; I do not agree with the Feminist thesis that men were privileged throughout our history, and I certainly don't think it's the case today.

[+][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Human males are just like any other great ape. They are larger and stronger because of sexual preference and necessity. Male great apes can have harems (gorillas), or rape their mates and otherwise live separately (orangutans). Males in any mammalian species have more muscle mass because they need to fight for their right to mate. Strength is a sexual sign for good genes, lack of parasites, getting enough to eat, etc., therefore he would be a good selection as a mate to make the fittest, healthiest babies. Human males "face hardship" in the sense that they needed to display and ward off rivals, thus are stronger than females who have the ability to sexually select the best mate. But in terms of modern society, aka once we were no longer cavemen, women do suffer more hardship. Hardship is not just physical. I am a biologist- don't even try to argue this point with me because I've been studying evolution and mammals for a good 8 years now.

Also, female survival is not prioritized. Think of all of the sexual selection that has occurred historically in China and India. Babies that are aborted or killed are typically females, and now they are facing the costs of that decision.

Using the Titanic as an example is a flaw. That was the exception, not the rule. Many men died on that voyage because many lifeboats were sent off not even full. But, in the case of just about every other shipwreck, men have a better chance of survival, because when it comes down to it, everyone fends for themselves in the face of disaster. Rarely are people courteous enough to make way for women and children first when their own life is on the line.

I agree that women no longer need preferential treatment. As a woman and a feminist, I can guarantee you that a majority of sane women today do not ask for that. They ask for equality. True equality, like equal pay for equal work. I am not talking about doing something stupid like lowering the physical standards of firemen and cops. I am talking about being paid the same dollar for every equivalent man's dollar, and being given the opportunity to become CEOs and Presidents of companies. If the focus is on programs for women, it is typically either a) with regard to abortion, which does not affect men (physically, at least, since they cannot get pregnant); or b) they want to improve a situation for women because it will ultimately benefit all of society. Feminists also focus on improvements for men, such as being aware that crime and war affect men much more, and there needs to be better healthcare programs in place to deal with mental disorders like PTSD.

I would like to see your reference for the 98% statistic. That seems outrageous to me. Then again, if you have running water, a roof over your head, and good health, you are better off than 75% of the world today, so... Maybe not?

You look at the issue of property and voting from a biased point of view. Was it nice to be able to sit inside, sheltered, not having to work? Sure, but only the wealthy women did that. Otherwise they were in a hot kitchen, or taking care of kids. But, once their husbands passed, they did not receive that property. Their opinion and votes were discounted because they were not considered of the same intelligence. Women were thought to have smaller brains and an inability to make logical decisions. The term "hysteria/hysterical" comes from those times, in reference to women and their "emotions."

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

Opportunities are an emergent phenomenon that arise when a person's services are in demand. Different companies will not necessarily offer the same salary for the same work, and forcing them to do so would be almost impossible, and exceedingly detrimental to the economy.

If women really did get paid less for the same work, why wouldn't you suggest that women simply use this to their economic advantage? If women could command a lower salary; they would make themselves more competitive than men in the job market, and they would make themselves more employable and more promotable as a result. If employers wanted to discriminate against women, it would be very silly of them to do it by paying men more. If they did, they would have to employ mostly women to keep salary overheads down, and this would lead to higher female employment, and more opportunities for women. How does this privilege men exactly?

I believe it was you who brought up the Titanic. I simply highlighted that such a policy was a good example of the kind of chivalry that has been around for a long time, the concept of male disposability doesn't rely on the Titanic simply because GirlWritesWhat may have brought up the Titanic's "women and children first" policy in her video on the subject. Historically, female survival was prioritized because it had to be. If you genuinely were a biologist, you would understand that males are more suited to promiscuity than females. This is why our most recent common matrilineal female ancestor predates our most recent common patrilineal male ancestor by tens of thousands of years. Furthermore, I did give you the example of the 2 tribes and demonstrated why it makes more sense to prioritize the survival of females from a biological point of view. I also didn't see you give an adequate refutation to this. Instead you just asserted that it's not relevant because we are "no longer cavemen". Of course we're not, but the concept still applies. The western birthrate is below replacement, and this will eventually lead to very negative consequences if not recognized and acted upon. As we have to deal with an increasingly aging population, our economy and productivity will suffer greatly, and on top of this, our workforce will eventually have to be supplemented by workers from countries with birthrates far above replacement like Africa and the Middle East. Socioeconomically, this raises even more questions about the future of the west, as many of these countries don't have our level of education and infrastructure. In other words, to put it bluntly; our current trajectory is one of western socioeconomic decline.

The 98% figure was just a random number that I used to illustrate a point (hence no source). However the figure itself is hardly hyperbole. During Feudalism, everyone apart from the nobility were peasants who owned no property. The land itself was owned by the nobility, and it stands to reason that the noblewomen would have lived much more comfortably than the male peasantry. Unless you'd rather be a male member of the peasant class than a female who lived in a castle with servants.

As for India and China, the reason they want male children is because males are greater practical and economic assets. The women in these countries don't want to give birth to females because their infrastructure isn't substantial enough to look after them without the support of male labor. Once again, the responsibility to protect and provide for females sits at the feet of males. Hence: male disposability.

[–]notnotnotfred 10 points11 points12 points 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]oysterme 16 points17 points18 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

From my understanding, the term has to do with the ridiculously high standards society sets for being a man. For example: A REAL MAN has a girlfriend. A REAL MAN has a cool car. A REAL MAN makes this much money. A REAL MAN can bench this much. A REAL MAN has these interests. A REAL MAN has had sex with X number of people before he's Y age. A REAL MAN doesn't cry. If you can't fulfill all these requirements, you're not a real man.

Men have all these standards they have to fulfill, and people wonder why men are more prone to alcoholism, drug abuse, suicide, and earlier deaths than women are...

So it's not so much "men are toxic" as much as it is "society's idea of what an ideal man should be is toxic". Those standards are needlessly high, and only apply to a fraction of men. Why can't all adult male humans be considered "real men" regardless of their hobbies, physical strength, and number of people they slept with?

[+][deleted] 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]DaedeM -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]squirtlekin 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]Luxpreliator 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]korkyshadow 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Kickedbk 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]LeSamouraii 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]fishing-for-downvote 3 points4 points5 points 13 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]LeSamouraii 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]fishing-for-downvote -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]LeSamouraii 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]fishing-for-downvote 1 point2 points3 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]LeSamouraii 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]fishing-for-downvote 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

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

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

Both young males and young females need to mate. Just a few generations ago, most young people could respectfully satisfy their sexual needs by getting married at a relatively young age. Now, we have entered a time culturally where the mate selection process lasts much longer for the average person. Yet, physiologically, the human species remains the same as it has for millions of years.

This change comes partly as a result of birth control. In the past, when humans mated, the female became pregnant more easily and wanted the male to help raise the family. So, females in general wanted to get married at a younger age. Now, with birth control, females in general often decline marriage proposals when given at a young age. Moreover, they behave collectively in ways designed around postponing reproduction. This places tremendous pressure on anyone, male or female, who feels instinctively compelled to marry at a young age.

Thus, in earlier times evolution might have selected for behaviors designed toward reproducing at a young age, but now we see selection pressures against those behaviors. When young males commit suicide due to feeling rejected by society, it essentially removes their genes from the gene pool for reproduction. With the statistics so high for male suicide compared to female, we might justly wonder what behaviors evolution might have selected for from males that differs from females and that human culture now restricts for males in general. I don't pretend to understand the full picture, but it seems useful to think about this difference from an evolutionary perspective.

In particular, we might wonder what behavior traits young males in general tend to exhibit that come coupled with any instinctual preferences they might have toward monogamy at a young age. For example, we tend to think of young males as having strong passionate feelings of love for for their mate. Perhaps by selecting against reproducing at a young age, human culture also selects against strong passionate feelings of love.

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

This is a wonderful poster. It is one of those statistics we should be ashamed of and want to actively work to fix. Perhaps we could figure out here what could be done positively instead of who to blame?

In order to fix this we will have to work to change the notion that men must hide their feelings. We also have to work to let young boys and men understand that society is not fair to them right now. We need to understand what factors cause boys to make this decision, and how we can alleviate them.

Any ideas?

edit to add-I was at the Mayhem Festival last night, where I saw men greet each other with huge hugs, and groups of young men moshing-they all had huge smiles, slamming into each other and when someone fell they picked him up, including my son. I would start with what works at a metal concert, where boys and men allow those walls to break down and be physically affectionate in a non-sexual way with no shame. It is one of the reasons I love metal shows.

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

[–]jianadaren1 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

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

Here is a list of video links collected from comments that redditors have made in response to this submission:

Source Comment	Score	Video Link
sirhotalot	3
sirhotalot	3	The Effects of Emasculation, Part I
UnconfirmedCat	1	Oslo Terrorist Anders Behring Breivik Manifesto
sirhotalot	1	#1 Living in a Feminist, Man-Hating Matriarchy - part 1 of 5
sirhotalot	1	Warren Farrell Speaks in Toronto: Transforming the Boys Crisis

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

[–]snapperpow1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Gltmastah1 point 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -4 points-3 points-2 points 13 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Bluepillschool 14 points15 points16 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]transgender_account 8 points9 points10 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 13 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]HappyGerbil88 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 13 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]sillymod[M] 2 points3 points4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]HappyGerbil882 points 13 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

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

[–][deleted] -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]cuttlefishmenagerie -3 points-2 points-1 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -8 points-7 points-6 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -13 points-12 points-11 points 13 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]TapDancingWartortle 10 points11 points12 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

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

[–]CAUSEDweddingPUNCHUP -1 points0 points1 point 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]emlehseer -2 points-1 points0 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]num1engage -9 points-8 points-7 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]radrler -6 points-5 points-4 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Saerain -3 points-2 points-1 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] -10 points-9 points-8 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]bizarroAndres -11 points-10 points-9 points 13 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]fishing-for-downvote 0 points1 point2 points 13 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	Male privilege.
Author	accountt1234
Upvotes	1284
Comments	271
Date	July 14, 2013 10:07 PM UTC (13 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/1iasm4/male_privilege/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/male-privilege.1168740 https://theredarchive.com/post/1168740

Comments