Why doesn't TBP have a problem with feminism complaining/blaming men for women's issues, but gladly criticize TRP's attitudes/generalizations towards women?

AmericanHistoryAFBB · 2015-06-06T04:44:44+00:00

Just a question. Why doesn't TBP see any problems with feminism? Why is TRP the big bad wolf of the internet? Why is the manosphere so hated, while...

[–][deleted] 13 points13 points13 points 11 years ago | Copy Link

[–]CarkudoThe original opinionated omega20 points21 points22 points 11 years ago (192 children) | Copy Link

[–]AmericanHistoryAFBBI'm Back[S] 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago* (185 children) | Copy Link

[–]curiouspeach -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (183 children) | Copy Link

[–]CarkudoThe original opinionated omega17 points18 points19 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]DanieltckHuggable Red Pill Man3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]CarkudoThe original opinionated omega-2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ParagladLinkstorm or no deal0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]epicureanmanslut 13 points14 points15 points 11 years ago* (167 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (166 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

Recognizing and pointing out that straight white men are, overall, at an advantage over other groups is the problem?

Are they?

Straight and white, sure these are legitimate advantages.

But being male is a mixed bag.

It means you will face discrimination against you in school by overwhelmingly female staff leading to significant discrepancies in grading (up to a full grade point penalty for being male), disciplinary actions, being sent to remedial classes, being drugged, and graduation rates.

One graduated if you ever break a law you get a 60% longer sentence (slightly longer than the difference between blacks and whites).

If you manage to avoid that there is a vastly greater chance you'll end up homeless, addicted to drugs, or dead of suicide or workplace fatality.

And for all this there is far less sympathy and social resources available to help you.

People will step over a dozen bleeding men to comfort a crying woman.

This is privilege? If that were the privilege feminists were fighting against I'd support them 110%.

It isn't.

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics13 points14 points15 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Because it's kind of a dumb question.

No, you just didn't care for the answer.

I mean, women are over 50 percent of the population, but only 18 percent of the Congress. 0 percent of presidents are women. Of the Fortune 1000 companies, a total of 51 are headed by women. In the major religions of the world, women hold like no positions of power.

I mean, women are over 50% of the population but less than 5% of the prison population, 30% of the homeless, 20% of the suicides, 2% of the workplace fatalities, virtually 0% of those arrested for DV, etc.

Hence "mixed bag".

Please deny all of these things, declare that women are just as likely to go to jail or die young or face discrimination in school from the majority female staff, literally any of the claims I made.

Please deny them now.

Or declare that men dying and being incarcerated doesn't matter to you.

In the finacnial, political and spiritual realms, women are clearly at a huge disadvantage (and those are the only ways of wielding power I can think of.)

And here's where you continue ignoring all the areas where women have clear advantages and men are at the disadvantage.

But if you want to get more specific, women are overwhelmingly more likely to be victims of domestic and sexual violence

Debatable. Lesbian couples have the highest rates of DV.

Which suggests to me a great many men are suffering in silence. Which, since we've adopted the Duluth model, is probably their best bet as they're more likely to be jailed for reporting their abuse than see justice.

Another male "privilege" you will ignore.

more likely to be poor.

Only if you ignore the homeless.

I have no interest in arguing this shit, but women are also on average paid less for doing the same job as men.

This is an utter lie.

And this is not to even mention the constant "smaller" shit that women deal with, like being taken less seriously, being called "bossy" for asserting themselves, being viewed sexually as a default, etc. etc. etc.

Being viewed as likely sexual predators, being called "creepy" for being socially awkward, being virgin-shamed, etc.

Yes you have proven that men have all the advantages when you deliberately ignore all their disadvantages/women's advantages.

Congrats, you invented confirmation bias.

I say this as a white, straight, man: We have it better than any other group.

Emphatically false. Straight white women have it better.

[–]TheSonofLiberty8 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]dakruNeither7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago* (143 children) | Copy Link

(Note: I'm going to talk about the present day, because it's rare that I see a feminist say "we used to live in a patriarchy but we don't anymore". The claim of patriarchy is made about this century as well.)

So recognizing and discussing the fact that men have held almost all position of power in western culture since it began is class warfare...against men?

That's not all that happens, though. There's nothing wrong with recognizing that most positions of power are held by men. Go after the male politicians and business executives all you want. Hold them responsible for their actions and how they use their power.

My objection comes when feminists don't just talk about these particular men having power, but rather how "men (as a class/group) have power". They give responsibility and guilt to men as a group, even though the average man has no more power than the average woman. What's that quote from Robin Morgan about thinking man-hating is an honourable act because the "oppressed having a right to hatred against the class that is oppressing them"?

Recognizing and pointing out that straight white men are, overall, at an advantage over other groups is the problem?

If I saw feminists generally recognize men's disadvantages but make the judgement that they thought women had more disadvantages then I'd disagree but I could live with that.

The problem I see is that they generally ignore, downplay, deny, or rationalize away the disadvantages that men face. In many cases they even take part in victim blaming ("that's just men's own fault").

[–]cuittlerಠ_ಠ3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (44 children) | Copy Link

My objection comes when feminists don't just talk about these particular men having power, but rather how "men (as a class/group) have power". They give responsibility and guilt to men as a group...

The concept of Patriarchy is not really about handing out responsibility or guilt to men.

Think of patriarchy as a system that grooms people for two separate roles. One set of people is groomed to be leaders and doers who hold public power and have agency, and the other to be the caretakers who serve others and aid the agency of others. Not all will be successful, but all will be encouraged to develop certain traits and suppress others in order to fulfill that role. Then, it defines the first set of roles and the characteristics needed for them as more valuable than the second, overall.

If you are a man who does not want to live in your assigned gender role, or does not live up to the standard in some way, patriarchy will hurt you. It restricts your options. So, since childcare and domestic labor is devalued women's work, if you want to stay home and take care of your kids all day, you will be looked down on as less of a man (and being a man is seen as "better" than being a woman).

As far as "men are stupid and monolithic," that's not an accurate reflection of how patriarchy sees men. As you noted, many studies have shown that people tend to overestimate men's competence in leadership positions and underestimate women's; similarly, men overestimate their own intelligence and attractiveness and women underestimate theirs., so that would indicate far from being seen as stupid, men are seen as smarter though they are not. They are only seen as incompetent in the household and at caretaking, because that's seen as a woman's job that should be below them.

Also, men are the cultural default for "human," their gender generally invisible unless brought up, so I'm not sure what you mean by saying men are seen as monolithic. (Let me know if you need me to elaborate if you don't know what I mean by "cultural default.") Only in situations related to sex are they seen as monolithic, which in a patriarchy is to excuse them from responsibility for almost all sexual behavior they display towards women.

Restrictions on women's sexuality come from a view where they were the property of a man, and their bodies were seen as commodities that could be devalued by "use." Exerting any sort of independent sexual agency is forbidden for women for that reason, since the man's sexual agency is what matters.

Feminists recognize that men who fall outside the patriarchal view of the ideal man are hurt by it, just as women who fall outside the patriarchal view of the ideal woman are hurt by it. Feminism points to the fact that most positions of power are still occupied by men because that is a symptom of lingering patriarchal gender roles which it hopes to deconstruct and do away with.

[–]TomHicksAntifeminist sans pills6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]cuittlerಠ_ಠ4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–]TomHicksAntifeminist sans pills3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (18 children) | Copy Link

[–]cuittler1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TomHicks2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cuittler1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TomHicks2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cuittler1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TomHicks1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cuittler1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TomHicks1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]cuittler1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It doesn't work, because: You state that the attitude leads feminists to act that way, that something inherent in feminism is the cause. If that were true all feminists should behave that way but only a few do, which suggests that logic is utter bullshit.

Even your "analogy" is flawed in its basic premise, if something inherent to the ideology causes the behavior then all adherents to said ideology should behave that way. They don't. There are just some people in every group who are more extreme and assholish than the rest.

Like MRAs, some only care about bashing feminism rather than actual issues facing men. Some would prefer to compare feminism to racism and calling names to felony acts. Some would happily deny all the moderate feminists and good things they've done and focus on the few who are obviously douchebags and rejected by the rest of feminism as representative of the whole. Some have no idea how biased and ignorant this is, and feel secure in their little fantasy of evil feminazis because then they don't have to ever think critically about their own behavior.

Waste of my fucking time.

[–]TomHicks1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It doesn't work, because: You state that the attitude leads feminists to act that way, that something inherent in feminism is the cause. If that were true all feminists should behave that way but only a few do, which suggests that logic is utter bullshit.

TIL in a hate movement, all members are completely consistent and identical in their expression of hatred. If there is even one person who deviates from the group in the nature or amount of vitriol they spew, the movement is not a hate movement and deserves immunity from criticism.

Even your "analogy" is flawed in its basic premise, if something inherent to the ideology causes the behavior then all adherents to said ideology should behave that way. They don't. There are just some people in every group who are more extreme and assholish than the rest.

Remember #YesallWomen as a rebuttal to #NotAllMen? Remember how popular that got? Apply the same logic here.

Also, something something Schrodinger's rapist.

Like MRAs, some only care about bashing feminism rather than actual issues facing men. Some would prefer to compare feminism to racism and calling names to felony acts.

Except, MRAs haven't come close to setting women back the way feminists have set men back. The White Feather campaign, Duluth Model, Affirmative Action, VAWA, Primary Aggressor act, heard of them?

Some have no idea how biased and ignorant this is, and feel secure in their little fantasy of evil feminazis because then they don't have to ever think critically about their own behavior.

Fantasy eh? But patriarchy totally isn't a fantasy yeah? Western first world women's oppression totally isn't a fantasy yeah?

You wouldn't know the first thing about critical thinking, you're a feminist.

Waste of my fucking time.

Funny, that was my thought when I first debated with you.

[–]cuittler2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TomHicks0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You had yet to show that feminism is a hate movement, so the rest of your argument isn't worth addressing

Here are its influential public faces. I rest my case.

you completely missed the point of #YesAllWomen.

Point being?

You also show a basic lack of understanding of the white feather campaign

Shaming young men (even disenfranchised boys) into dying in a pointless war. What's there to misunderstand?

primary aggressor laws.

Making sure the man is arrested in a DV scenario, even if he's the victim. What's there to misunderstand?

The singular point you have, Duluth model, is one feminists and even the creator have already acknowledged is not working and needs to be replaced.

And what are they doing to repeal it? Nothing. They'd rather screech and wail about manspreading, micro-rape, triggers blah blah

Then GO AWAY

Great example you're setting as a mod there. /s

If you had any self awareness or integrity, you'd step down as a mod.

[–]cuittler1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TomHicks1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Again, you show a fundamental lack of understanding of these issues

Say I'm misunderstanding, don't bother explaining how. Maybe because you know your argument's bullshit.

I'm not at all surprised to see these tired images (basic MRA go-to arguments, most taken out of context)[1]

Citing a fucking askfeminists thread ROFL

Went through it anyway, no refutation to be found. Just the usual "they don't represent me, so they don't represent feminism!" delusion.

I told you repeatedly to stop pestering me

Ahh, the old harassment card. When you've got nothing to say, when you know you're losing, just scream harassment. You feminists are so predictable.

you've been exceedingly hostile and rude to people in this sub

Hmm.. lets take a look at this comment chain

Waste of my fucking time.

Then GO AWAY

Got a mirror? Should look into it sometime.

you're more interested in pushing your MRA agenda than keeping an open mind.

Really, you should use that mirror. It'll like, tell you stuff about yourself and shit.

I'm not interested in debating your empty rhetoric and dishonest arguments.

Do you read your own comments?

[–]cuittler1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TomHicks1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]cuittlerಠ_ಠ3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]dakruNeither0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]TheJollySatandropping truth bombs since 841 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ThisSiteIsDumbAndBad1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]dakruNeither0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]englishotter4 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I didn't click the links from your response (I'm on my phone) but based on the quotes you posted from the professor and the author, they pretty much sum up my belief set of how feminism should be acting, rather than acting like extremists of Fourth Wave feminism (the "shitlord" and "die cis-scum" feminists.) If feminism is going to be a movement for equality, feminists can't diminish the struggles that men face in our society today, with a big double standard imo being domestic abuse or abuse in general. Even though feminists would say that issues of recognizing abuse in courts is an issue of gender roles (which feminists are trying to dissolve,) I haven't heard of any direct actions that feminists have taken to help men in this circumstance and that should change.

In my post, I was just referring to the most obvious hate of feminism that I see on Reddit and its presence on subreddits such as /r/TumblrInAction, anything related to GamerGate, and 4chan. I wasn't trying to imply that you follow those mindsets (I don't get that impression at all from you,) I was trying to provide a popular example that most on /r/PurplePillDebate could easily recognize.

And I only say that it seems like a lot of people don't understand feminism because they toss around terminology without understanding what they mean; there's a lot of misconceptions on Reddit. For example, I see the word "privilege" get tossed around on Reddit quite a bit and while I don't doubt that you know what privilege is, I'm just going to outline my belief for the purpose of explaining where I'm coming from. When it's not being used ironically, it seems like people interpret the use of the word privilege as having a micro application (for individuals,) rather than the macro application that it's supposed to display (for populations.) Just because an individual is white or a male doesn't mean that they don't face some sort of discrimination. Privilege means that on average, most white people or most males won't be discriminated against under everyday circumstances. And there are different privileges for identifying with a certain category, such as being white, being male, being upper class (as well as middle class,) being a Christian, etc. so if you're white but you're living in poverty, you're not gonna have a good time regardless of being white. There can easily be disadvantages to identifying with those categories, but society values those identities a lot more than their counterparts.

I hope this explains what I was trying to say?

[–]TheJollySatandropping truth bombs since 841 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I'd criticize it less if it used more than the conflict theory style approach it absorbed from the Marxists in the 60s. If you attack every part of society perceived as prejudicial to women without asking what that part was holding up, you can't put the proper coping mechanisms in place.

A few things i think got fucked up along the way because a functionalist approach wasn't taken along with the conflict style that feminism usually runs with.

A lack of access to finical abortion to fathers after women received the ability to get abortions. The Duluth model. Influencing government policy on the current rape hysteria at american university. VAWA trying to block alimony reform. The american no fault divorce system because it is encouraged by greedy lawyers; unnecessarily causing removal of fathers from many children lives causing them to grow up missing crucial socialization, the honest breadwinners will get crucified.

I could go on. Feminism's political arm has left some nasty collateral that isn't a priority for it to fix.

[–]alcockell-2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TiaThrowaway1234560 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

The concept of Patriarchy is not really about handing out responsibility or guilt to men.

And yet it always seems to be used this way.

Think of patriarchy as a system that grooms people for two separate roles. One set of people is groomed to be leaders and doers who hold public power and have agency, and the other to be the caretakers who serve others and aid the agency of others.

The overwhelming majority of men never come close to holding a position of public power, nor are they particularly 'groomed' for it. You're making a mistake here by confusing 'upper-class and aristocratic men' with 'all men'. MRAs refer to this as the 'apex fallacy' - looking at elite men and deciding their experience is what all men experience.

It is much more accurate to say that men are socialised to obey their hierarchical superiors. This prepares them for a life where they - wait for it - spend almost all their lives serving others and aiding the agency of others.

At most, one man is the CEO - the others are all employees who have to do what he says. At most, one man is head of state - everyone else has to do what he says. THe number of men who live the lives you describe here is tiny. Not all will be successful, but all will be encouraged to develop certain traits and suppress others in order to fulfill that role. Then, it defines the first set of roles and the characteristics needed for them as more valuable than the second, overall.

Not all will be successful, but all will be encouraged to develop certain traits and suppress others in order to fulfill that role.

Men are primarily taught to be good team members before anything else; even a cursory examination of male cultures (such as sports or the military) reveals this as being self-evident. Those who lead best do so for the clear benefit of the team. The purpose of masculine traits is not to be the leader, it is to be a part of making your 'team' (or country, or tribe, or platoon, or whatever) the most competent, efficient, and useful. Otherwise men would be endlessly battling for leadership, instead of being superb cooperative machines.

Then, it defines the first set of roles and the characteristics needed for them as more valuable than the second, overall.

This is false.

If you are a man who does not want to live in your assigned gender role, or does not live up to the standard in some way, patriarchy will hurt you.

Yes, men's gender roles are much harsher and more restrictive than women's. Darned patriarchy that men invented to opress women!

It restricts your options.

If you have no resources or skills, your life will be difficult as a man (less so as a woman). This isn't patriarchy, this is real life. Women get a lot more shielded from it than men.

So, since childcare and domestic labor is devalued women's work, if you want to stay home and take care of your kids all day, you will be looked down on as less of a man (and being a man is seen as "better" than being a woman).

Men are expected to be directly useful to society. If you aren't making money, you aren't worth anything, as a man. Women have never had this problem because Patriarchy says they aren't obligated to earn money. Sort of like aristocrats.

Additionally, childcare and domestic labour is not devalued. It is funded by an entire legal structure (arguably a male-oppressive one) that forces men to fund women who engage in these activities. This structure is called marriage. It is normal and expected for a woman to be entitled to the results of a man's labour. At present, women also draw on men's resources through the intermediary of the state, since the majority of taxes are paid by men, and the majority of state benefits go to women. It is very obvious that our society values women's work very highly - though not directly, since it is of little immediate value (i.e. raising a child is not useful for about 20 years).

As far as "men are stupid and monolithic," that's not an accurate reflection of how patriarchy sees men.

It is an accurate description of how feminism sees them, if your post is anything to go by.

As you noted, many studies have shown that people tend to overestimate men's competence in leadership positions and underestimate women's; similarly, men overestimate their own intelligence and attractiveness and women underestimate theirs., so that would indicate far from being seen as stupid, men are seen as smarter though they are not.

Depends. For example, men are also more confident than women because of their higher level of testosterone. This can have a great effect on self-perception, and others' perceptions, while requiring no 'patriarchy'.

Additionally, men are probably more commonly associated with intelligence because at the highest levels of intelligence, most people are men. If most of the top scientists, engineers, philosophers, etc., are men, then this will have a knock-on effect. No patriarchy required.

They are only seen as incompetent in the household and at caretaking, because that's seen as a woman's job that should be below them.

Or because men can't match the divine domestic goddess, the sacred feminine, the womanly grace of...whatever. The idea that men are incompetent at caretaking is a very recent feminist invention. Men have been raising children on their own for centuries, due to childbirth being such a dangerous process. They also still do most of the repairwork and yardwork around the place (feminists refuse to classify this as 'housework' because they view it as male and thus superior to female work, due to their misogyny).

Also, men are the cultural default for "human," their gender generally invisible unless brought up, so I'm not sure what you mean by saying men are seen as monolithic. (Let me know if you need me to elaborate if you don't know what I mean by "cultural default.") Only in situations related to sex are they seen as monolithic, which in a patriarchy is to excuse them from responsibility for almost all sexual behavior they display towards women.

How is a default not generic? That's another way of saying 'monolithic'. Just look at how men dress - far more generically than women. Feminism certainly sees men as a monolith, or at least PAtriarchy Theory treats them as such.

The idea that men are excused from 'almost all sexual behaviour' is ridiculous in light of the fact that women are treated far more leniently, both socially and legally, for any of their sexual behaviours (with the possible exception of sexual infidelity).

Restrictions on women's sexuality come from a view where they were the property of a man, and their bodies were seen as commodities that could be devalued by "use." Exerting any sort of independent sexual agency is forbidden for women for that reason, since the man's sexual agency is what matters.

I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on what the reasoning behind the traditional restrictions on male sexuality are.

Feminists recognize that men who fall outside the patriarchal view of the ideal man are hurt by it, just as women who fall outside the patriarchal view of the ideal woman are hurt by it. Feminism points to the fact that most positions of power are still occupied by men because that is a symptom of lingering patriarchal gender roles which it hopes to deconstruct and do away with.

Then maybe women and feminists should stop hurting them, for a start. You frame everything in terms of impersonal behaviours. 'Are hurt by it' - who does the hurting? And why?

These days, as TomHicks pointed out, a lot of the people hating on non-traditional men are feminists. Women are going around masturbating to Don Draper and Christian Grey, and writing articles about how men won't 'man up' (which means 'make money, marry me so I can have that money'). A lot of those women call themselves feminists. If your movement is judged by its actions...it's not doing to well. Hasn't been for a while, if its actions towards non-traditional men in the past are any indication.

[–]cuittlerಠ_ಠ4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on what the reasoning behind the traditional restrictions on male sexuality are.

Certainly, anything that could be perceived as feminine: being gay, being submissive, being a cuckold, being impotent. There are more, you should refer to the first link I provided on male competition in patriarchy for more info.

You frame everything in terms of impersonal behaviours. 'Are hurt by it' - who does the hurting? And why?

Who does the hurting: people who perpetuate patriarchal gender roles. Why do they do it: lots of reasons, but mainly because it benefits them (or they believe it to). An example of someone who might value patriarchal gender roles is a very beautiful young woman or a very strong, rich or powerful man. Being beautiful brings a woman respect and perks in a patriarchal world, while being physically strong or big, rich or powerful brings a man respect and perks.

a lot of the people hating on non-traditional men are feminists.

You mean his point that some people call men "virgin losers"? Those people are assholes. They are the same as men who'd call feminists ugly fatties.

Women are going around masturbating to Don Draper and Christian Grey, and writing articles about how men won't 'man up' (which means 'make money, marry me so I can have that money'). A lot of those women call themselves feminists.

Source?

[–]cuittlerಠ_ಠ2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

And yet it always seems to be used this way.

Are you open to the idea that you may be misinterpreting what is said?

The overwhelming majority of men never come close to holding a position of public power, nor are they particularly 'groomed' for it. You're making a mistake here by confusing 'upper-class and aristocratic men' with 'all men'. MRAs refer to this as the 'apex fallacy' - looking at elite men and deciding their experience is what all men experience.

The fact that there are men who don't share in the highest echelons of power doesn't disprove the idea of a patriarchy. The OP posted this article which goes into great detail on how patriarchy is a system which not only places men above women but pits men against other men for power (which women often did not even have access to, such as being a soldier or politician or scholar).

Men do not just happily bond together to oppress women. In addition to hierarchy over women, men create hierarchies and rankings among themselves according to criteria of “masculinity.” Men at each rank of masculinity compete with each other, with whatever resources they have, for the differential payoffs that patriarchy allows men.

Men in different societies choose different grounds on which to rank each other. Many societies use the simple facts of age and physical strength to stratify men. Our society stratifies men according to physical strength and athletic ability in the early years, but later in life focuses on success with women and ability to make money.

The fact that we still see so few women in the most powerful positions says something about the part gender roles still play in influencing what areas people choose to work in. Do you remember when Hillary Clinton ran for president a few years ago? There was a lot of gender-based backlash against her and Sarah Palin as well. I think it's naive to assume this treatment both on and off camera from everyone to political commentators, reporters and their colleagues has no effect on women entering the political sphere. The same can be said of other male-dominated fields which show a distinct tendency to hire and promote more men over women and start men off with much higher salaries than equally qualified female candidates.

https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~srugheimer/Women_in_STEM_Resources.html

http://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/lean-out-the-dangers-for-women-who-negotiate

https://www.themuse.com/advice/looking-for-a-raise-the-cards-may-be-stacked-against-women

And if you're wondering, no we don't see the same effect with men going into female-dominated areas - in fact we see the opposite.

http://www.siop.org/Media/News/escalator.aspx

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jennagoudreau/2012/05/21/a-new-obstacle-for-professional-women-the-glass-escalator/

This is false.

How so?

Yes, men's gender roles are much harsher and more restrictive than women's. Darned patriarchy that men invented to opress women!

sigh I don't like these "who has it harder" debates because those holding them tend not to enter them in good faith or with open minds.

If you have no resources or skills, your life will be difficult as a man (less so as a woman). This isn't patriarchy, this is real life. Women get a lot more shielded from it than men.

In what way?

Men are expected to be directly useful to society. If you aren't making money, you aren't worth anything, as a man.

And as a woman you are expected to be beautiful. If you aren't, or you were but have passed your "expiration date", you aren't worth anything as a woman. At least in your scenario a man can have value by doing something, but a woman's value is always declining no matter what she does simply because it's based on her looks and nothing else. This is why feminism exists, so women can have the opportunity to get by in life on something other than a temporary resource - they can choose to educate themselves (although for men and women the quality of education often depends on class) and enter a profession and support themselves. They are still largely valued for their looks by society but at least it isn't their only option anymore. Men too, can get by on their looks by becoming models or actors or gigolos or any of the options open to women, they are just much less respected for it as men. This is also something feminism hopes to deconstruct and do away with, btw.

Additionally, childcare and domestic labour is not devalued. It is funded by an entire legal structure (arguably a male-oppressive one) that forces men to fund women who engage in these activities.

Are you aware of the discrepancy in pay between traditionally feminine or "pink-collar" jobs and those masculine jobs like oil-rigging and construction?

"It's sort of a trade-off," Dill says. "You can either go into manufacturing and make higher wages, but you may lose your job, or you can go into healthcare and have a higher degree of job stability."

The researchers found no evidence that men were leaving male-dominated occupations for frontline healthcare jobs. The lower pay, along with the stigma men may feel doing "women's work," are among the reasons.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/08/140816204409.htm

Women have never had this problem because Patriarchy says they aren't obligated to earn money.

Women tend to go into lower-paying but more stable jobs which are more flexible about time off because...women are still doing the majority of housework and childcare even while working full-time. It is true that patriarchal gender roles put a lot of pressure on men to be providers for their families, and due to this men are much less willing and less expected to make the same sacrifices to their careers for their families that women do (although this is changing, yay!).

It is most definitely a feminist issue, and furthermore it is a family issue. Families where both partners have the flexibility to be at home but don't have to take huge hits to their career are much better, at least IMO, than families where one partner is working long hours and rarely at home while the other works full-time and raises the kids while taking a huge hit to career advancement and pay.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/dads-dont-sacrifice-family-for-work-2011-06-23

Or because men can't match the divine domestic goddess, the sacred feminine, the womanly grace of...whatever. The idea that men are incompetent at caretaking is a very recent feminist invention.

...[Citation Needed]

It's interesting you'd say that as all the feminist sources i've seen say the opposite.

"On most key issues, the route to modern feminist goals must pass through fathers. Men should work more flexibly, take greater responsibility for caring for their children and their homes, and have the right to reserved parental leave," says the IPPR.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2012/mar/10/housework-gender-equality-women

Feminism certainly sees men as a monolith, or at least PAtriarchy Theory treats them as such.

Refer to my original comment to the OP on patriarchy.

The idea that men are excused from 'almost all sexual behaviour' is ridiculous in light of the fact that women are treated far more leniently, both socially and legally, for any of their sexual behaviours (with the possible exception of sexual infidelity).

"Boys will be boys" doesn't ring a bell to you? How about, "she's a cocktease/slut/whore/ who deserved it"? Or the fact that female sexuality of teens is so carefully guarded by parents while male sexuality is expected and considered healthy? The whole slut/stud double standard?

As for women being treated more leniently by the law, it is true but i think you misunderstand the motivation behind it.

Women commit fewer crimes. Men and women abuse drugs in similar rates, but women primarily abuse prescription drugs, which are harder to be "caught" with as being used illegally, and men are more likely to abuse alcohol and use illicit substances. Men commit the majority of assaults, rapes, and murders.

The sheer numbers of crimes committed by men is going to account for a gigantic portion of the differences between the two groups.

Secondly, ask yourself why women get more lenient sentences than men do.

Now ask yourself why children receive lighter punishments than adults do.

Lizzie Borden was found to be not guilty despite the blatant motive, means, and opportunity for the murder of her father and step-mother. All of the evidence was there, but she was found not guilty. "A woman couldn't possibly have done that" was the thinking.

Our society paints women as children. As physically and emotionally fragile and helpless beings that need to be protected by men. This is a concept that penetrates ever facet of our culture, from the "save the women and children!" trope, which puts women in the category of "children" rather than adults, to legally barring women from combat because they're too physically weak.

If you want our culture to punishing women like we punish people - like we punish adults - then you need to help us transform our culture into one that sees women as adults who are capable of wielding power, of being dangerous, of being threatening.

Ran out of space, to be continued.

[–]TiaThrowaway1234560 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The fact that there are men who don't share in the highest echelons of power doesn't disprove the idea of a patriarchy. The OP posted this article which goes into great detail on how patriarchy is a system which not only places men above women but pits men against other men for power (which women often did not even have access to, such as being a soldier or politician or scholar).

Based on the article's contents, that Pleck guy didn't have many male friends growing up. Why does he think that men can't relate to each other non-competitively? Why does he think it's inherently more stressful to spend time with other men than with other women?

Not to say there aren't some things in the article that are true, but overall I don't think it's very good.

Men do not just happily bond together to oppress women. In addition to hierarchy over women, men create hierarchies and rankings among themselves according to criteria of “masculinity.” Men at each rank of masculinity compete with each other, with whatever resources they have, for the differential payoffs that patriarchy allows men.

Men in different societies choose different grounds on which to rank each other. Many societies use the simple facts of age and physical strength to stratify men. Our society stratifies men according to physical strength and athletic ability in the early years, but later in life focuses on success with women and ability to make money.

Men like competing with each other. So far as I can tell it is biological. Women compete differently (usually by undercutting each other socially or trying to surpass each other in seductive powers). This is not the Patriarchy, it's just human nature. By the way, it's not strength that's fundamental to male competition (though that is part of it) - it is social utility. In technologically simpler societies that means muscle, but also skills like hunting or craftmanship or knowledge generally (such as epic poetry in the time of the ancient Greeks).

Even argument is something men compete in - look at rhetoric, or logic. This isn't patriarchy you're complaining about, it's masculinity. By and large men like competing with each other according to certain rules (explicit or implicit) in skills that are to the benefit of their society.

Stuff about women politicians.

Women have the same odds of being elected, if they run, as a man does. If they can't handle criticism (and they can't, not as well as men) then they will run less often. If all you care about is that everyone has to like you and be nice to you all the time, you will not suceed as a politican. TL;DR: man up and deal with it. We men handle feminists blathering on about how everything is the fault of the evil men running things. Learn to do the same.

Stuff about women in the workforce

Women are less interested in their salaries than men, and tend to ask for flexibility and stability instead. You can't fix this discrepancy because it's a discrepancy that women want.

Stuff about men in women's jobs.

Men are more interested in a higher salary. They will accept longer and worse hours, not take time off work, and train more to become more high-earning at greater rates than women do. You can't fix this discrepancy either - because let's face it, women and men both want this one. IN fact, society may depend on it.

Are you aware of the discrepancy in pay between traditionally feminine or "pink-collar" jobs and those masculine jobs like oil-rigging and construction?

Since you're ignoring my point about marriage I will repeat it: under traditional values it is normal for a woman to be sufficiently valuable that she can enter into a status where she is legally entitiled to support from a man. This is a massive proof of value. As for 'pink-collar jobs', many of them are subsidised by the state (i.e. men, since they pay most of the taxes) and tend to have lower hours, stress, expertise, and be more comfortable. They are also less directly useful to society, hence their reduced salary.

Stuff about women and work-family balance

Well, this is interesting.

Women tend to go into lower-paying but more stable jobs which are more flexible about time off because...women are still doing the majority of housework and childcare even while working full-time.

First of all this statistic never recognizes little things like DIY in the home, car repairs, yardwork, etc, as being a man's contribution. I don't know if that's because feminists don't know that it happens or because they only consider women's work to be demeaning. Second, you left out things like the fact that men worked longer hours than women, even when both were in full-time employment. Not everyone wants an exact 50-50 split of all tasks. I respect other people's right to organise their personal lives as they choose. If this means that men and women also make different choices in aggregate, I respect that too.

Fathers should work less

If men are subsidising women - which they are - then we cannot afford for men to work less than they already are. Additionally, men who start earning less money become less attractive to their wives and run the risk of divorce, which no sane man wants to face.

...[Citation Needed] Tender years doctrine

Refer to my original comment to the OP on patriarchy.

The article in question does treat men as almost entirely a monlith. If I said, 'women just want to be housewives, aside from a few crazy lesbians' it would pretty much be the mirror image of the article.

"Boys will be boys" doesn't ring a bell to you? How about, "she's a cocktease/slut/whore/ who deserved it"? Or the fact that female sexuality of teens is so carefully guarded by parents while male sexuality is expected and considered healthy? The whole slut/stud double standard?

Sexual abuse by women is seen as impossible or at least less severe than the same behaviour by men. See Lena Dunham vs Josh Duggar. She published what she did in a book. To her own baby sister no less.

I have a sister.

Duggar is facing jailtime and national outrage from all comers (aside from a handful of cultists) from something he at least tried to conceal. Dunham has had what happen to her, exactly? After she shouted her crimes from the rooftops?

We think boys who got raped by their teachers 'got lucky' and hardly ever punish them. We don't even make the basic assumption that a woman raping a man is bad. After all, a man who got raped by a woman 'must have wanted it'.

Or the fact that female sexuality of teens is so carefully guarded by parents while male sexuality is expected and considered healthy?

Female sexuality is seen as precious by all (hence feminists freaking out about rape culture and begging for protection). Male sexuality is not seen as valuable for itself. You can't dirty mud.

The whole slut/stud double standard?

A lot more complicated than you think. However, part of that has to do that being a stud requires at least some effort - confidence if nothing else. A stud is a man who went out and did something, even if it was just having the confidence to ask a lot of women out. A slut is just a woman who said yes all the time, which is not an achievement. If women acted like men in regards to sex, this would disappear as a double standard. However, they don't want to, and neither do men want them to.

Stuff about women being infantilised, then ran out of space.

If feminists do not want women to be infantilised, they should stop infantilising women. You don't need a campaign against rape culture, you need a spine and some common sense.

[–]TiaThrowaway123456-2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Forgot to add stuff about women's appearance:

You assert that all women have ever had was appearance. This is false. The ability to keep house (which meant food preparation and clothing manufacture and canning and candlemaking and mending and washing and medical care and butchering and baking and...) was a massive source of female enticement.

Men still appreciate a woman who can cook.

The fact that you think women become worthless as they age strongly reflects your own prejudices, in my opinion.

they can choose to educate themselves

Women were getting educations well before feminism, formally and informally.

They also made up a significant chunk of the workforce.

We are currently wealthy enough to afford having women do these jobs, but that may not be the case forever.

Men too, can get by on their looks by becoming models or actors or gigolos or any of the options open to women, they are just much less respected for it as men. This is also something feminism hopes to deconstruct and do away with, btw.

When feminism is criticised, feminists assert that it is not a monolith. When feminism is being praised, it is absolutely a monolith.

Do you have any evidence that feminism is doing this? They're divided about sex workers at best, I know that.

[–]cuittler1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Women were getting educations well before feminism, formally and informally.

They also made up a significant chunk of the workforce.

Ok? I never said otherwise.

When feminism is criticised, feminists assert that it is not a monolith. When feminism is being praised, it is absolutely a monolith.

It just so happens that the most frequently criticized aspects of feminism (at least by non-feminists) is of the extremist fringe that most feminists don't follow and want nothing to do with. If you were to search for feminist criticisms of feminism you would find a lot to do with issues of black and other minority feminists not having the same voice or influence on the whole as white feminists, and how U.S.-centric feminism cannot be packed up and shipped off to other nations like McDonalds, to name a few.

The fact that you think women become worthless as they age strongly reflects your own prejudices, in my opinion.

ok dude

If that's the conclusion you came to I can tell I've wasted my time here.

[–]TiaThrowaway1234561 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

One thing that I have noticed in my discussions with feminists on reddit is that they very quickly start ignoring large parts of my arguments, even when I give very careful attention to all of theirs.

Anyway:

It just so happens that the most frequently criticized aspects of feminism (at least by non-feminists) is of the extremist fringe that most feminists don't follow and want nothing to do with.

The same extremist fringe that got the Duluth Model for Domestic violence into use as the standard blueprint for law enforcement?

The same extremist fringe that hold onto concepts like privilege and patriarchy that are patently useless because no-one can ever seem to agree what they mean? I've even seen feminists assert that only radical feminists believe in partiarchy - who is right and who is wrong?

The same extremist fringe that made the Indian government change a rape law from gender-neutral to female-victim only?

The same extremist fringe that did this?

That extremist fringe seems to be everywhere, and they always seem to get what they want.

Most feminists are not like this, but this is how the largest feminist organisations tend to be run, because it's the fanatics who care the most.

Like the National Organisation for Women, which is the largest feminist organisation in the US.

By the way, don't bother trying to find the action alert on their webpage. It got deleted..somehow. However, a search of NOW's website has some very interesting results. They don't seem to like fathers very much.

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]cuittlerಠ_ಠ1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Someone should let feminists know this.

There's no need to be snide.

There is a significant difference in the way boys and girls are brought up which has an impact on them for the rest of their lives.

Children learn about gender from many people. Parents are important in this learning. You teach children about gender in many ways

You tell children what to do or not to do. (You’re a big boy—don’t cry!)

You teach them directly. (Let me show how girls should sit.)

You let children do certain activities (inviting children either to play football or to help make Thanksgiving dinner).

You teach by example. (maybe Mom always does the laundry and Dad always does the dishes).

You show what you expect your boys and girls to do (starting a college fund for both sons and daughters, or expecting a girl to get a C in math and a boy to get an A).

You use different language with boys and girls (calling a boy strong and calling a girl pushy when they do the same thing).

https://www.extension.purdue.edu/providerparent/PDF%20Links/ChildrenBoysORGirls.pdf

Teachers socialize girls towards a feminine ideal. Girls are praised for being neat, quiet, and calm, whereas boys are encouraged to think independently, be active and speak up. Girls are socialized in schools to recognize popularity as being important, and learn that educational performance and ability are not as important. "Girls in grades six and seven rate being popular and well-liked as more important than being perceived as competent or independent. Boys, on the other hand, are more likely to rank independence and competence as more important." (Bailey, 1992)

This socialization of femininity begins much earlier than the middle grades. At very early ages, girls begin defining their femininities in relation to boys. One study of a third grade classroom examined four self-sorted groups of girls within the classroom: the nice girls, the girlies, the spice girls and the tomboys. Through interviews researcher Diane Reay found that 'nice girls' was considered a derogatory term indicating, "...an absence of toughness and attitude." (Reay, 2001) Furthermore, the girlies were a group of girls who focused their time on flirting with and writing love letters to boys, the tomboys were girls who played sports with the boys, and the spice girls espoused girl-power and played 'rate-the-boy' on the playground. Reay's research shows that each of the groups of girls defined their own femininities in relation to boys. (2001)

The Reay study further demonstrates how socialization of girls occurs at the school level by tolerating different behaviors from boys than from girls. Assertive behavior from girls is often seen as disruptive and may be viewed more negatively by adults. In Reay's study, the fact that the spice girls asserted themselves in ways contrary to traditional femininity caused them to be labeled by teachers as "real bitches". (2001) This reinforces the notion that "...girls' misbehavior to be looked upon as a character defect, whilst boys' misbehavior is viewed as a desire to assert themselves." (Reay, 2001)

http://www.edchange.org/multicultural/papers/genderbias.html

In fairness, there is certainly evidence that boys who act out in a rowdy way are graded worse for equal or better test results than girls, but boys who don't act out are graded better for equal or better test results than girls.

In other words, boys who match girls on both test scores and behavior get better grades than girls do, but boys who don’t are graded more harshly.

But before we start siphoning off boys from mainstream schools or putting trampolines in every classroom, it’s worth noting that gender disparity is only one lens through which we can understand academic performance, and an imperfect one. Susan Cain, author of Quiet: The Power of Introverts in a World That Can’t Stop Talking, describes how the current vogue for collaborative learning and group projects may leave introverts and solitary thinkers behind. These types of learners are often labeled uncooperative or academically deficient because their learning style doesn’t conform to our current conception of a productive work output. Perhaps instead of dividing classes by sex we should consider dividing by learning style, except that in a society that privileges extroversion, one can only imagine how parents might respond to the suggestion that their child is introverted and shy.

http://ideas.time.com/2013/02/06/do-teachers-really-discriminate-against-boys/

[–]dakruNeither0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The concept of Patriarchy is not really about handing out responsibility or guilt to men.

The picture of patriarchy you gave might very well match your own views, but it doesn't match how I see the term used "in the wild" (i.e. when people are using the term outside of the context of defending it or justifying it). Specifically compared to that, your definition isn't inaccurate as much as it is incomplete.

"In the wild", I see the concept used to refer to a system where men have power over women and where they use this power to oppress, exploit, and dominate women, while privileging themselves and perpetuating their own power. They believe that women can contribute to this system, but obviously with men having the power they believe that men hold most of the responsibility. The way you described it, as a detached system of gender roles bearing down on us all, seems like a "sanitized" version of the idea. Again, it might match how you see it but it's not how I see it used most of the time.

Here are a few examples of feminists using the term in a way that I encounter more often. Joseph Pleck (professor of human development and family studies at the University of Illinois) has an article "Understanding Patriarchy and Men’s Power" where he says this:

Patriarchy is a dual system, a system in which men oppress women, and in which men oppress themselves and each other. [http://site.nomas.org/understanding-patriarchy-and-mens-power/]

Bell hooks (well-liked feminist author) writes this in Understanding Patriarchy:

Male oppression of women cannot be excused by the recognition that there are ways men are hurt by rigid sexist roles. Feminist activists should acknowledge that hurt, and work to change it—it exists. It does not erase or lessen male responsibility for supporting and perpetuating their power under patriarchy to exploit and oppress women in a manner far more grievous than the serious psychological stress and emotional pain caused by male conformity to rigid sexist role patterns [emphasis added]. [http://imaginenoborders.org/pdf/zines/UnderstandingPatriarchy.pdf]

[–]cuittlerಠ_ಠ3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

It does not erase or lessen male responsibility for supporting and perpetuating their power under patriarchy to exploit and oppress women in a manner far more grievous than the serious psychological stress and emotional pain caused by male conformity to rigid sexist role patterns

Right, she's saying that if you support or perpetuate these roles you are responsible for perpetuating patriarchy. There is a lot of talk about how white people or men can combat racism or sexism by not playing into those stereotypes which perpetuate them - for example hiring the most competent person for the job regardless or sex or race rather than relying on ideas like women are less capable and Mexicans are lazy.

Pleck's article is focusing on the hierarchies present between men due to patriarchy. He explains what he's about in the opening paragraphs. Women absolutely do participate in and perpetuate patriarchal roles just as men do, and can be rewarded and praised for their adherence to said roles just as men do and this is often talked about in feminism as internalized misogyny, but this is again, not the focus of Pleck's analysis.

In recent years, we have come to understand that relations between men and women are governed by a sexual politics that exists outside individual men’s and women’s needs and choices. It has taken us much longer to recognize that there is a systematic sexual politics of male-male relationships as well. Under patriarchy, men’s relationships with other men cannot help but be shaped and patterned by patriarchal norms, though they are less obvious than the norms governing male-female relationships. A society could not have the kinds of power dynamics that exist between women and men in our society without certain kinds of systematic power dynamics operating among men as well.

Men do not just happily bond together to oppress women. In addition to hierarchy over women, men create hierarchies and rankings among themselves according to criteria of “masculinity.” Men at each rank of masculinity compete with each other, with whatever resources they have, for the differential payoffs that patriarchy allows men.

Men in different societies choose different grounds on which to rank each other. Many societies use the simple facts of age and physical strength to stratify men. Our society stratifies men according to physical strength and athletic ability in the early years, but later in life focuses on success with women and ability to make money.

In our society, one of the most critical rankings among men deriving from patriarchal sexual politics is the division between gay and straight men. This division has powerful negative consequences for gay men and gives straight men privileges. But in addition, this division has a larger symbolic meaning. Our society uses the male heterosexual-homosexual dichotomy as a central symbol for all the rankings of masculinity, for the division on any grounds between males who are “real men” and have power, and males who are not. Any kind of powerlessness or refusal to compete becomes imbued with imagery of homosexuality. In the men’s movement documentary film Men’s Lives, a high school male who studies modern dance says that others often think he is gay because he is a dancer. When asked why, he gives three reasons: because dancers are “free and loose,” because they are “not big like football players,” and because “you’re not trying to kill anybody.” The patriarchal connection: if you are not trying to kill other men, you must be gay.

Edit: No I don't see these two as extremists.

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (97 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]dakruNeither8 points9 points10 points 11 years ago* (69 children) | Copy Link

Here are a handful of them. (See here for a more comprehensive list of the areas where men are doing worse, as well as sources.)

A man who commits a crime will get a longer sentence than a woman (and in fact a woman is less likely to get jail time in the first place). This is (of course) with other factors equal like the type of crime, criminal history, etc.
Men are more likely to be the victims of homicide, robbery, and more injurious types of physical assault.
Gay men are significantly more likely to be the victims of sexual orientation-based hate crimes than gay women.
There's a gender gap in life expectancy that has men's lives ending 4-5 years earlier than women's, on average (~1-2 years of this is biological, but the rest seems to come from other factors).
Men suffer homelessness and drug/alcohol addiction at noticeably higher rates than women.

(Note: because this is one of the most common challenges that I've experienced in the past, I acknowledge that some of these, particularly the last two, have a large component of personal choice. However the same can be said for many women's issues, and I don't think that this invalidates either these men's issues or those women's issues. There's a lot more to the story than "that's just a personal choice", especially when talking about homelessness and addiction.)

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (68 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[removed]

[–]exit_sandman3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ThisSiteIsDumbAndBad-2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pillburt4 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ThisSiteIsDumbAndBad-1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheJollySatan1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ThisSiteIsDumbAndBad1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TiaThrowaway1234566 points7 points8 points 11 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

1) women receive shorter sentences for the same crimes because society views women as less likely and capable of committing crimes. This is a result of traditional gender roles.

Feminists have repeatedly asked for women to be treated more leniently than men. This is one example.This is another.

2) men are more likely to be both perpetrators and victims of violence because they have been socialized toward violence where women are socialized to passivity. This is an expression of the influence of traditional gender roles.

Also feminism. See: Emma Watson's speech at the UN. Also, women will prefer to work behind the scenes and (for example) ask a man to do violence to another man on her behalf, for example by saying he raped her, or provoking him into a rage and getting him arrested (by a male police officer) and imprisoned. These sorts of behaviours are very difficult to keep track of.

3) Effeminant men are victims of hate crimes mainly because their existance is a challenge to traditional gender roles.

Or because they are seen as pretenders to being something they are not and can never be, as well as useless. Don't mistake your ideology for reality.

4) No one really knows why men live shorter lives than women, but one solid theory is that men are more likely to have the kinds of dangerous jobs that have traditionally been denied to women. Because of strictly defined gender roles.

Biologically, all else being equal, men will on average live 1 to 2 years less than women (this is as a result of studies of monks and nuns who lived essentially identical lifestyles, isolated from modernity). Men live shorter lives for well understood reasons:

-They commit sucide more - a lot more.

-They work more dangerous jobs (which women have the option of not doing)

-They work more generally. Being a man is a higher-stress state of affairs than being a woman. Overwork at an office job is still bad for you.

-They are far more acceptable victims of violence, which is why violent men and violent women generally target men. People in general have more sympathy for women.

-Men will protect women; women will not protect men. In the event of accident, disaster, or violence, men will act to keep women safe but not vice-versa.

5) Because of traditional gender roles and ideas about masculinity, men are less likely to seek help for alcoholism, addiction and mental illness, and that often leads to homelessness.

They are also less likely to have this help available to them. This is because society in general cares more about women's suffering then men's. This has a variety of side effects, such as alcoholism and addiction.

Men are also more likely to be veterans and suffer from PTSD, again, because society views men as soldiers, not women.

And because very few women - perhaps no women - can match men physically as soldiers. That's why militaries have separate physical performance standards for male and female soldiers. Also, fewer women want to enter into the miltary, and fewer women want to do combat-related jobs. Societal stereotypes are not the all-powerful boogeyman feminists make them out to be. Sometimes people - even the ones who are women - can make choices on their own.

Luckily, there is a large, organized movement that has demolishing traditional gender roles as its main goal. It's called "feminism."

This is false. Feminism is not a single movement (feminists also hold this position, but only when someone is criticizing feminism) and this is not the goal of any feminist organisation (though I agree that might be what it says on the fliers).

It is more accurate to say that feminism has as its goal the modification of traditional gender values for the benefit of women, particularly upper- and upper-middle-class white women. For example, many feminist campaigns against violence assume women as victims and exhort men to 'man up' and intervene. This is a reinforcement of a traditional gender role.

Likewise feminists will routinely vote to divert resources from men to women. For example, during the recent economic crisis the US government planned on creating a Stimulus Package that would create jobs with government money in the worst-affected sectors (such as construction). However, feminists noted that these sectors were male-dominated and demanded that the money be spent on female-dominated jobs, even though these had gained jobs during the recession.

*Edited a bit for formatting

[–]ThisSiteIsDumbAndBad0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TiaThrowaway1234563 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

What's your alternative theory?

A lot of these disparities are more the result of our biology and our environmental circumstances than feminists would like to admit. They invariably privilege (hahaha) the idea that self-reinforcing stereotypes are the cause of absolutely everything. This is an ideologically convenient position for feminists, but it is not backed up by facts.

I would recommend this lecture to start with. It's a class at Stanford.

I've given you feminism's solution (let's work to ending gender roles) as well. What's yours?

I do not see how you missed the entire ending of my post where I asserted that feminism is not interested in ending gender roles. Since that's not what feminism is doing, I fail to see how that is 'feminism's solution'.

What exactly do you consider to be the problem we are trying to solve?

[–]ThisSiteIsDumbAndBad-1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TiaThrowaway1234563 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

That doesn't really answer anything... beyond saying, "That's the way things are."

'Biology and environmental circumstances' is a pretty clear attribution of cause. Try watching the Sapolsky lecture. It won't bite you.

If I said, 'because men and women are affected by different DNA and hormone levels starting in the womb, causing them to react in different ways to their environment, which can also change and affect them in that way', would you consider that a better answer?

Those tricky feminists! Lying about their core agenda for a hundred years!

Suffragettes and suffragists (you know them as 'First Wave Feminists') reinforced gender roles whenever they damn well felt like it. They weren't interested in destroying gender roles and said so.

Second-Wavers frequently assigned gender roles to men. Some of them said what you're saying here, but that doesn't mean they meant it.

Third-wavers are all over the map.

Inequality between the genders that favors men exists (and has existed for thousands of years) and this results in a decrease in general happiness for everyone.

First of all I do not believe that inequalities have necessarily favoured men. Second, look up the paradox of the decline in female happiness. Women in the western world have had a less-restrictive gender role for decades, and overall their happiness has decreased, in contradiction with what your post here asserts would happen.

The fact is that the type of woman feminism cares about (wealthy and privileged) can get the career she wants, when and how she wants it. The rest of us don't have her options or flexibility. Men are used to this state of affairs; women less so, hence their increasing unhappiness.

[–]ThisSiteIsDumbAndBad0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

If I said, 'because men and women are affected by different DNA and hormone levels starting in the womb, causing them to react in different ways to their environment, which can also change and affect them in that way', would you consider that a better answer?

I mean, I guess. I disagree, but whatever. I asked.

Suffragettes and suffragists (you know them as 'First Wave Feminists') reinforced gender roles whenever they damn well felt like it. They weren't interested in destroying gender roles and said so.

Within the context of their time, they worked to abolish gender roles. I mean, their name is based on giving women the right to vote, because it was previously thought that the female mind couldn't deal with the responsibility of making political decisions.

Some of them said what you're saying here, but that doesn't mean they meant it.

Those tricky feminists! Lying about their core agenda for 50 years!

First of all I do not believe that inequalities have necessarily favoured men.

So you're saying something like:

"Gender-based uneven outcomes are products of our biology. They favor men and women equally. Fighting to end trying to dismantle gender roles is is a bad idea for everyone, especially women," right?

[–]TiaThrowaway1234563 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I mean, I guess. I disagree, but whatever. I asked.

Please do watch the lecture by Robert Sapolsky. He is an excellent educator. You will learn a lot, I'm sure.

(Seriously, lectures from Stanford free for anyone who wants them. What a time to be alive!)

(Also, cats. And porn. This is the internet, after all).

Within the context of their time, they worked to abolish gender roles.

No, they worked to modify the legal status of women. They liked gender roles just fine for the most part. This terminology would not even exist until the 60s.

I mean, their name is based on giving women the right to vote, because it was previously thought that the female mind couldn't deal with the responsibility of making political decisions.

True. Of course, plenty of women were afraid that if women got the vote they would also get the corresponding obligation to military service and opposed it for that reason. And it also notable that in England at the time men didn't have suffrage either - only a minority of men could actually vote (i.e. property-owning men).

Men in the UK received the right to legally vote in 1918. So did some women. It was extended to all women a mere 10 years later - women had to wait only 10 years longer than men.

And unlike the men, who got the vote on the basis that they had fought to preserve the government, women got it on the basis that men had already gotten it.

If you get something handed to you for free that someone else had to work for, maybe you're just a little bit privileged.

Those tricky feminists! Lying about their core agenda for 50 years!

Not lying, just fooling themselves, for the most part. It's easy to fall into patterns of thought that conform to our natural prejudices, and 'women are victims and in pain and YOU NEED TO HELP THEM' is very strong motivation. See: the Damsel in Distress trope.

"Gender-based uneven outcomes are products of our biology. They favor men and women equally. Fighting to end trying to dismantle gender roles is is a bad idea for everyone, especially women," right?

"Gender-based uneven outcomes are products of our biology.

This is sometimes true, and far more often than feminists think. This is because they believe that all differences between the sexes are 'socially constructed', which they believe means 'made up'. This is not what social construction means, of course.

They favor men and women equally.

In this case 'equally' is impossible to define. It would be more accurate to state that men and women had explicitly defined roles in life and that these came with benefits and drawbacks.

A big part of the issue here is that feminists are refusing to recognize what the male role was, or what its drawbacks were. They are also responsible for continuing and enforcing the male role through institutions, although they don't know this. After all, out of sight, out of mind.

Fighting to end trying to dismantle gender roles is is a bad idea for everyone, especially women," right?

Hard to say. I used to think so, now it looks like it might be impractical. On a societal level, the knowing imposition of an impractical system is doing evil in my opinion, because it leads to massive suffering.

This is because of something called the Women Are Wonderful effect. We naturally tend (men AND women) to like and care for women far more than for men. No matter what happens, men will be biologically inclined to protect and care for women. LIkewise, women will NOT be biologically inclined towards protecting men.

One consequence of this tendency filtered through feminism and the modern economy is the discrepancy in workplace deathrates.

Feminists are in an awful hurry to make sure the fortune 500 is 50% vagina, but I have yet to hear one stand up and entreat women to protect their husbands, brothers, fathers and sons by taking dangerous jobs.

Quotas for pleasant office work, freedom (which means, 'only when I damn well feel like it!') on the oil rigs. I guess this can be summarised as, I don't think feminism is doing that.

For example, take this speech by Emma Watson. In it she implores men to protect women.

That doesn't sound like an end to gender roles to me.

[–]alcockell0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]roteroktober5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (21 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cbus_anonymous1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]roteroktober1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Cbus_anonymous0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You're directly contradicting yourself again, and the military is only one of the examples I gave. Are you agreeing now that women have demanded quotas in jobs other than the top positions in companies or not? I honestly can't tell.

In terms of suing the military to establish quotas, they had to sue to be allowed to even get into those positions to begin with. Pushing for equivalency in numbers comes after pushing for entry.

but of couse without meeting the same standards as men.

And here's that statement again. What are you talking about? It's something you've thrown out here in a vacuum several times.

Lastly, I don't debate that men, in general, get longer sentences for the same crimes, but I don't see how that's relevant to what's being discussed. You were tacking it somehow onto a response about your belief in women not pushing for equal job opportunities in other fields. How does it connect to anything?

No one is claiming that men never have it worse than women. Why are you so insistent on framing this in black and white?

[–]roteroktober1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Cbus_anonymous1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ThisSiteIsDumbAndBad-1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]roteroktober5 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Cbus_anonymous1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ThisSiteIsDumbAndBad-1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pillburt3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Cbus_anonymous0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ThisSiteIsDumbAndBad-1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]roteroktober3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ThisSiteIsDumbAndBad0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]roteroktober2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ThisSiteIsDumbAndBad0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]roteroktober2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ThisSiteIsDumbAndBad1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]roteroktober1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ThisSiteIsDumbAndBad1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]dakruNeither1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago* (30 children) | Copy Link

I grew up as a feminist. During that time I read feminist material and talked to feminist friends and not once do I remember men's issues being given any large amount of attention, or even actually acknowledged at all. In fact I don't even remember knowing that men's issues existed (with the exception of custody and treatment in the divorce system) until I found alternative material on gender outside of feminism. If I can be a feminist for so many years and not even know that men's issues exist then that's a good sign feminism is not too concerned with men's issues.

From that experience I am very hesitant to believe that feminists are serious about addressing men's issues too (or that they understand the extent of men's issues). Until the time comes that I see adequate attention given to men's issues in feminism, I can't identify with the movement.

Also, one thing that especially troubles me with how feminists see men's issues is that so often their response will be "yeah that's a thing but it just happens because of misogyny". An example of this is your first number. When men are sentenced more harshly, why did you choose to focus on negative attitudes towards women that cause hurt to men? What about negative attitudes towards men, like male disposability, the empathy gap, etc.? That's another requirement that I have before I could call myself a feminist: widespread acceptance that negative attitudes towards men exist, and that men's issues aren't just side-effects of misogyny.

[–]pillburt3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Cbus_anonymous0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I hear what you're saying, but I feel the starting point is unfair. Ultimately, it's like indicting a cardiothoracic surgeon for not performing brain surgery. That the CT surgeon refuses to perform surgery outside of their ken isn't suggesting that brain surgery isn't necessary, or that CT surgery is more important than brain surgery, or anything. It's just one of many subspecialties.

People that work for equalization of the rights of all in all scenarios tend to describe themselves as fighting for human rights, or civil rights (if specifically within this country). It's not fair to hold as failing a subgroup that addresses the needs of its specific subgroup.

Feminism was started and continued to address the social and political inequalities specifically facing women. That's not intended to argue that no one else faces inequality in any other venue.

Also, one thing that especially troubles me with how feminists see men's issues is that so often their response will be "yeah that's a thing but it just happens because of misogyny".

Would you mind giving other examples of this? I don't think I'm getting your point here.

[–]dakru4 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I understand your point, and if it was the case that feminists were clear on their movement specifically being for women then I could understand them just focusing their activism on women.

But (from my experience) it's far more common for feminists to define their movement as being "about gender equality" rather than "about gender equality when it benefits women". For example, /u/curiouspeach above defined feminism as the "desire for equality between people, regardless of gender, class, social/economic status, ethnicity etc.". If we go with this definition then giving attention only to women's issues really doesn't make sense.

Also, in my post I was replying to /u/ThisSiteIsDumbAndBad's post where he/she looked at a list of men's issues and basically said "yeah, but feminism has all of that covered".

So with this general context (the widespread idea that feminism is "just about gender equality") and the specific context of my post (the other user saying that feminism has men's issues covered), I don't think it's at all unreasonable for me to approach feminism from the perspective that it should be addressing men's issues.

If there was a widespread acknowledgement among feminists that their efforts are to address areas of gender inequality that hurt women and that areas of inequality that hurt men need another group (and they did not actively hinder efforts to address men's issues by discouraging other groups or downplaying/denying men's issues) then I could not complain. That would simply be an issue of them having a passion for women's issues, and that's fine. But unfortunately that's not what I see at the moment.

Would you mind giving other examples of this? I don't think I'm getting your point here.

Sure. Basically it's an approach to men's issues that accepts the existence of the problem, but argues that it is in some way not a problem in itself, but rather a side-effect of a problem women face.

Here's a specific example, from the blog Feminist Law Professors: http://www.feministlawprofessors.com/2011/11/female-privilege/

Just about anything that can be put forth as so-called female privilege has roots in misogyny.

Commonly Cited Female Privilege: When custody arrangements are made during a divorce, rarely does a woman have to fight for the right to be with her children.

Misogynist Roots: Women have always been considered the primary caretakers of children, and are pressured from every side to do so to the point where men who are observed publicly tending to their own children are often asked if they’re “babysitting” them until their wife gets home. If men and women were equally considered to be caretakers, custody arrangements would more than likely be equally considered.

I have more examples here (and a more wordy argument as to why this is harmful), but in general the problem is that it marginalizes men's issues. It's "accepting" men's issues in the loosest sense of the term (because it's saying that what's really happening is that men are hurt by women's issues). It's like if I were to at the fact that women are often expected to care for children "yes, we expect women to care for children, but it’s only a side-effect of the fact that we see men as bad parents".

[–]Cbus_anonymous1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I agree with your general If/Then statement. As in, if feminism in general defines itself as pushing for the equality of all, then it is also equally required to champion the issues leading to inequality, regardless of the source. The part that's still unclear to me is if this premise that you're stating is generally believed and claimed by feminists, or if it's used in casual conversation by people claiming to be feminists. The difference is demonstration of hypocrisy in and individual versus hypocrisy in a movement.

In face-to-face conversation, I've never seen anyone invoke feminism in that fashion, only in the more traditional sense that I wrote about, namely, it seeks to level the playing field for women. I haven't even seen it here, but I'll look to those comments and see for myself.

Regarding myself, I've never considered myself a feminist in the same way that I've never considered myself a black rights activist. When asked, I refer to myself as being for human rights. Part of the outcome of this is that I don't bother with a lot of any of the -ist literature, so I have no idea who's considered to be highly influential even in the last few decades.

I do have a question about this, though:

(and they did not actively hinder efforts to address men's issues by discouraging other groups or downplaying/denying men's issues)

Does that really happen? Where or when and how does this happen? If it's happening, I agree wholeheartedly that that's an issue, regardless of what ideology a person subscribes to, but I haven't seen that happen.

I think your reasoning on the last point is sound, but I've never seen that done either (until now). It's convoluted, and I would agree that the net effect of never addressing the male portion of a problem that directly effects men would be harmful to all. Is this widely done in your experience?

[–]ThisSiteIsDumbAndBad-3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]dakru7 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I'm not sure how you could expect feminism to do more to address "men's problems" than dismantling traditional gender roles. Like what more do you want?

The things they do for women's issues would be great. They don't go about fixing women's issues by not talking about them and not acknowledging them.

In the case of criminal justice system bias, feminists could acknowledge in their own circles the issue of men receiving harsher sentences. They could use their considerable influence in media and universities to spread awareness of the issue among the general population. This could be some articles on The Guardian, Slate, AlterNet, and other places currently talking about women's issues. They could create campaigns targeted at those who work in the justice system, and lobbying campaigns to get government action.

Also they could acknowledge that negative attitudes towards men exist and play a role in men's issues.

If you don't accept the basic framework of Feminism (that a society in which men hold most of the power hurts everyone, but hurts women worse), I can't imagine why you would think Feminism should do your activism for you.

I don't expect feminism to "do my activism for me". That's my whole point; I learned, through experience, that feminism is about women's issues and that it ignores or downplays men's issues. I learned not to expect any action on men's issues from them.

And no, I'm not on board with the basic framework of feminism. It's not completely wrong, but it's overly simplistic and it misses a lot by trying to interpret men's issues using female-focused concepts (like misogyny) instead of male-focused concepts (like misandry, male disposability, the empathy gap).

[–]ThisSiteIsDumbAndBad0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]dakru5 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Why you would expect feminists to focus on men's issues is really strange.

It depends. Is feminism a movement for gender equality, or is it a movement for achieve gender equality only in areas where doing so will benefit women?

Because most of the time I hear the first claimed. For example, /u/curiouspeach above defined feminism as "the desire for equality between people, regardless of gender, class, social/economic status, ethnicity etc.". Note the "... regardless of gender ..." part.

If this is the case, then feminism should be working towards equality for both genders. It should give some focus to men's issues. That doesn't mean not also focusing on women's issues; it means focusing on both and not marginalizing either.

If feminism is to be a movement to achieve gender equality specifically for women then I can't expect them to do much for men, you're right. (However I still won't want to get involved with it or identify with it, and I will expect them to avoid doing things that specifically set men back.)

But again, the vast majority of the time, feminism is described as "just about gender equality" (at least from my experience).

It's like expecting black people to organize anti-racism rallies around the slogan "racism hurts white people too!"

I don't think gender is at all comparable to race. In the realm of race, the disadvantages to being white are few and far between. There is no long list of issues facing white people comparable to the list I have of men's issues. On the other hand, men's issues most certainly do not pale in comparison to women's issues. If a movement is to be "just about gender equality" then it has to spend a decent amount of time on men's issues because men's issues are a large part of gender equality as a whole.

[–]curiouspeach1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I haven't responded to most of the replies to my comment, because I always forget that commenting in PPD results in breaking my "no touching the poop" rule and end up having conversations that go nowhere, which just makes me grumpy.

Yours, however, raises some really valid points. Feminism is about equality, regardless of gender. I would be as on board with fighting for a man's right to have access to a traditionally female gendered activity as I would for the opposite. The other poster is correct to note that men typically have greater privileged in many areas, such as employment. However, they may (depending on which statistics you read) be disadvantaged when it comes to issues such as custody in divorce - all other things being equal, in those instances, a feminist from my school of thought would be in favour of supporting equality even though it disadvantaged the woman.

[–]ThisSiteIsDumbAndBad-1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]dakru3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Feminism is a movement for gender equality.

Then you can't say "why do you expect feminism to do your activism for you?" when I talk about men's issues.

The word "equal" means something.

If I wasn't clear, "equality specifically for women" was meant as a shorter was of saying "equality in areas where having equality will help women, while not working for equality in areas where doing so will not help women (or will even hurt women, due to losing certain advantages)".

Right. That's why it's comparable.

I have a long list of areas where men are doing worse. That list, if I wrote it for white people instead, would be pretty short.

The "issues' facing men are a result of a historically unbalanced system in which men hold more power than women.

Here's my perspective. Feminists have some ideas (like misogyny, and the fact that more power has traditionally been held by men than women) and they use these to understand women's issues, which is all fine and good. These are female-centric ideas that work pretty well for understanding women's issues.

The problem is when we look at men's issues but insist on limiting ourselves to these female-centric ideas. It's trying to shoehorn men's issues into concepts that were made for understanding women's issues. It's not at all convincing to me that men's issues are just a result of more power being held by men than women, especially because many issues facing men involve men being especially common in so many of the positions of powerlessness at the bottom of society. To me this is much better understood through male-centric concepts like male disposability and the empathy gap than through female-centric concepts like misogyny and women lacking power.

Anyway, if you were confused before about my lack of trust in feminist enthusiasm for the other side of equality (men's issues), your post is a pretty good example of why I don't think feminists take men's issues seriously. I can't be a feminist because so many of the marginalize men's issues, use scare quotes on them, and portray them as not real issues in their own right, but instead side-effects of women's issues.

[–]alcockell3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ThisSiteIsDumbAndBad0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]dakru2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

OK, then why?

Why do I not think that men's issues are just a result of more power being held by men than women? Well, let's say today someone did a magic spell and the result was that all positions of power are held by as man women as men.

That would not get rid of men's issues. Men would still make up the majority of the homeless, they'd still die earlier than women, and they'd still be sentenced more harshly in the justice system. These issues are not a result of men being more common in positions of power, and they won't be fixed by making positions of power held equally by both genders.

Now for your actual question: if it's not that, then what is it? I'd look to concepts like male disposability and the empathy gap, which refer to the fact that we as a culture have less concern for the well-being of men and less desire to support them when they're down in life. When men fail, we're more likely to see them as bad people or flawed, while when women fail we're more likely to see them as victims who deserve our support and sympathy. If we could do a magic spell and get rid of these attitudes then I think that'd do a ton to address those men's issues. We'd be well on our way.

To be clear, I don't deny the existence of negative attitudes towards women. Many/most of the ones pointed out by feminists are real. Misogyny exists, gender roles for women exist, weird attitudes to women's sexuality exist. I just don't think these things are all that exists, or that they're the whole story. There are also negative attitudes towards men: misandry, gender roles for women, weird attitudes about men's sexuality.

And I'm deeply troubled when I see so many feminists try to gloss over the other side of sexism by claiming that it doesn't exist, and that men's issues can all be understood through the lens of sexism against women. It's one of the fundamental disagreements that I have with mainstream feminism.

Your specific points were more about gender roles than power, so I'll address them below.

Why are men less likely to be given custody of their children if it's not because women are traditionally viewed as caregivers?

"Men raise money, women raise children" is a gender role for both genders. It is not a gender role for women that happens to affect men too. To show what I mean, I can treat it as the opposite (a gender role for men that happens to affect women too) and ask this: "why are women expected to care for children if not because men are considered bad with children?". That sounds weird to you, doesn't it? It's like tip-toeing around the fact that there's a gender role for women too. In the same way, what you said was weird in that it tip-toed around the fact that there's a gender role for men too.

Why are women not drafted, if it's not because women were previously regarded as too delicate to go to war?

Women being less physically strong played a role, sure. But male disposability did too. Women are the limiting factor in reproduction. I'll let this quote from the book Legalizing Misandry explain it more:

"It has been suggested that the reason why men and not women are sent to war is not that male lives are valued less but rather that too many fatalities of women of reproductive years would inhibit a society’s ability to produce a new generation and thus threaten its own survival. The facts of reproduction are such that an individual man can father thousands of children if there were fertile women to gestate them, whereas an individual woman can produce only one child per year or so (depending in part on how and how long she breastfeeds the previous child), and then only as long as she still has ova and has not reached menopause. Because of this asymmetry, more women than men are required to produce new generations."

"The problem with this suggestion is that instead of showing that male life is not valued less than female life, it (at least partially) explains why male life is less valued. In other words, there is a good evolutionary explanation why male lives are regarded as more expendable. Large numbers of male fatalities need not impede a society’s ability to reproduce, whereas large numbers of female fatalities would. This was more true in our evolutionary past, when there were so many fewer human beings and societies were consequently so much smaller. Today, given how many more humans there are, societies could survive with higher female fatality rates, but it is in our species’ distant past that the attitudes to male and female life evolved."

Why are men so much less likely to be nurses or pre-school teachers if those professions weren't previously regarded as "ladies' work?"

This is like your first example where there are gender roles for men and women and you seem to be painting it solely as an issue of gender roles for women. I could flip it around: Why are women so much less likely to work dangerous jobs if not because those professions are seen as "men's work"?

[–]ThisSiteIsDumbAndBad0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I'd look to concepts like male disposability and the empathy gap, which refer to the fact that we as a culture have less concern for the well-being of men and less desire to support them when they're down in life.

... which is a result of traditional gender roles.

When men fail, we're more likely to see them as bad people or flawed, while when women fail we're more likely to see them as victims who deserve our support and sympathy.

...which is a result of traditional gender roles.

men's issues can all be understood through the lens of sexism against women

So, like I asked, how else can you see them?

(a gender role for men that happens to affect women too)

What possible difference does it make?

"why are women expected to care for children if not because men are considered bad with children?". That sounds weird to you, doesn't it?

No. it doesn't sound weird at all. It sounds like a very common attitude, and exactly the kind of traditional gender definition that feminism works to dismantle.

male disposability.

...which is a result of traditional gender roles.

why male life is less valued.

Oh, please. This entire thing you posted is based on a totally unsupported statement ("male life is less valued") and extrapolates an "explanation" for this non-fact based on nothing.

Its first sentence should indicate how unserious this shit is: "It has been suggested." It has been suggested by whom, exactly?

Like all evolutionary explanation for complex cultural problems, it's just invented shit with literally nothing backing it up.

Here's how it works: You just takes some phenomenon from the current day, and you say: "Well, cavemen" and then you make up a theory about how pre-civilization man "must have" acted, and voila! Proof of any nonsense you like.

I could flip it around: Why are women so much less likely to work dangerous jobs if not because those professions are seen as "men's work"?

Yes. You could. See how Feminism actively working to dismantle traditional gender roles helps men?

It's one of the fundamental disagreements that I have with mainstream feminism.

Everything that you have posted is in keeping with "mainstream feminism." (except that weird evolutionary shit, which isn't even worth mentioning, really.)

[–]dakru2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I don't think you're understanding where I'm coming from. I'll try to explain better.

I agree that most men's issues ultimately come from the traditionalist system of gender (roles). However I do not think that feminism is adequate for understanding, identifying, and moving past the traditionalist system of gender. It does fine with recognizing and opposing the misogynistic or female-negative/female-hurting aspects of the traditionalist system, but not the misandric or male-negative/male-hurting parts. By this I mean denying the existence of men's issues, or accepting the issues but denying that they're caused by anything negative towards men (like male disposability) and instead insisting that they're just a result of negative attitudes towards women.

Oh, please. This entire thing you posted is based on a totally unsupported statement ("male life is less valued") and extrapolates an "explanation" for this non-fact based on nothing.

The #BlackLivesMatter slogan/movement is based on the idea that the rampant killings of black people by police imply a problem of black lives being valued less. If this is true, then the fact that most of those killed are black men suggests that male lives are valued less too, don't you think?

And in my own country, Canada, there's been enormous public outcry over the issue of "missing and murdered Aboriginal women". There have been calls for an inquiry into that issue from former Prime Ministers, from the leader of the opposition and the third biggest party, and from a ton of other public figures. Aboriginal women do go missing and get murdered at higher rates than other women, but Aboriginal men actually go missing and get murdered at significantly higher rates than Aboriginal women, yet they're left out of calls for an inquiry. It's always "missing and murdered Aboriginal women". To me, focusing on women's deaths over men's deaths even though fewer women are dying strongly suggests valuing men's lives less.

Everything that you have posted is in keeping with "mainstream feminism." (except that weird evolutionary shit, which isn't even worth mentioning, really.)

Except I've talked specifically about sexism against men, although its existence is denied very widely in feminism. Do you believe in sexism against men? Not sexism against women that also hurts men as a side-effect, but outright sexism against men?

Also, I don't think that quote was talking about evolution, was it? At least not in the sense of anything developing in our biology due to evolutionary pressures. It was talking about choices made in a society for who to send to war, and these choices were based on a reproductive reality.

[–]ThisSiteIsDumbAndBad0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

The #BlackLivesMatter slogan/movement is based on the idea that the rampant killings of black people by police imply a problem of black lives being valued less.

That's a direct response to specific murders of black people by police and subsequent acquittal of officers.

If this is true, then the fact that most of those killed are black men suggests that male lives are valued less too, don't you think?

No. I don't think. Men (black and white) commit the vast majority of crimes, so the vast majority of people who interact with police are going to be men.

If you think society values the lives of black women more than it values the lives of white men, you're just nuts.

To me, focusing on women's deaths over men's deaths even though fewer women are dying strongly suggests valuing men's lives less.

It strongly suggests that society regards women as in need of protection in a way it doesn't for men. This is exactly the kind of gender definition that Feminism has always been against.

sexism against men,

Depends, because "sexism," in an academic sense, means discrimination against men backed with a power structure that favors men (IE: Patriarchy). I know that definition really makes redditors mad, but that's usually what people mean when they use the word. That's what I mean, anyway.

Discrimination against a member of an oppressed group is entirely different than discrimination against members of the oppressing population.

Do you believe in sexism against men?

Depends on what you mean by "sexism." If you mean "individual instances where men are discriminated against because of their gender" than sure.

If you mean instances where men are discriminated against because of their gender within a matriarchal framework," then no. No such matriarchal framework exists.

It's the same reason racism against black people is a totally different thing than "racism" against white people.

[–]dakru1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

First part of your post: I had the impression that it was about general negative attitudes towards black people that include valuing their lives less, and that it was just sparked by these particular incidents. After all, the tag was #BlackLivesMatter; this suggests that it's going against the idea that black lives don't matter. Either way, that was not in my country so I fully admit I don't know a lot about those incidents.

It strongly suggests that society regards women as in need of protection in a way it doesn't for men. This is exactly the kind of gender definition that Feminism has always been against.

I'd love it if feminists spoke out against special protections for women and special attention to their well-being, but unfortunately that's not really what I see happening. In this particular case, it's the parties on the left (Liberals and New Democrats), the ones most associated with progressivism and feminism, who want an inquiry into the women. The party on the right (Conservatives, currently in power) do not want an inquiry at all. I've seen no major figure argue for an inquiry into both the men and the women.

I have very little faith in feminism tackling aspects of the traditionalist system that help women (like the idea that women are precious and must be protected) from this experience and others.

Last part of your post: most of this stuff is where we disagree sharply, and where I hope it becomes more clear why I can't call myself a feminist. I disagree fundamentally with the idea that men are oppressors, that women are oppressed, and that we live in a patriarchy. I don't think feminists are bad people by any means, but they do have some unhealthy ideas about men.

[–]ThisSiteIsDumbAndBad1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I'd love it if feminists spoke out against special protections for women and special attention to their well-being

THEY DO. Jesus, man.

"Women are strong and capable and don't need to be treated like delicate little flowers" is practically the mantra of feminism, and has been for like 50 years.

It's only on reddit that there's this weird idea that feminism's stand is "Women want everyone to give them special things and don't want any responsibility." That's the reddit strawman, not the real stance of feminists.

that's not really what I see happening

Where do you see this happening?

Feminists advocate for women's empowerment because women clearly have less power as it stands now. That's not an argument for "special treatment" it's an argument for equality.

I mean, shit, women have only been allowed to vote for less than 100 years. Women were considered all but property a generation before that, and that status was the default in Western civilization for thousands of years. You really think that kind imbalance has been totally corrected (and has tipped in favor of women) in the course of one person's lifetime? Please. Have a little perspective.

and that we live in a patriarchy.

Since a "patriarchy" is a society in which the majority of power is held by men, and men how the vast majority of positions of political and financial power in the western world, I don't see how it's not a patriarchy.

[–]dakru1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

It simply hasn't been my experience that feminists put any large amount of effort into fighting against special protections for women and special attention to their being. I wish they did, but if anything they actually fight for special attention for women's well-being.

For the issue of "missing and murdered Aboriginal women", the strong trend I see is that feminists and feminist-leaning people are for the inquiry into the women specifically, while conservatives are against any inquiry and hardly anyone is for an inquiry into both women and men.

More broadly, one thing we've inherited from the traditionalist system is the idea that violence is worse when it happens to women. Far from fighting against this, feminists strongly reinforce it by conceptualizing "violence against women" as something separate from, and worse than, "regular violence" (meaning against men).

Where do you see this happening?

Liberal leader Justin Trudeau on the inquiry into "missing and murdered Aboriginal women": http://globalnews.ca/news/1523596/harper-on-wrong-side-of-history-in-opposing-aboriginal-inquiry-trudeau/

NDP leader Thomas Mulcair on the same thing: http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tom-mulcair-vows-aboriginal-women-inquiry-within-100-days-if-ndp-elected-1.2748280

These are the leaders of the two major left-wing (feminist/feminist-leaning) parties. Instead of speaking out against giving special attention to the women, they support it.

Feminists advocate for women's empowerment because women clearly have less power as it stands now. That's not an argument for "special treatment" it's an argument for equality.

This doesn't really seem related to the specific issues I'm bringing up (and neither does your next paragraph).

Since a "patriarchy" is a society in which the majority of power is held by men, and men how the vast majority of positions of political and financial power in the western world, I don't see how it's not a patriarchy.

If you use the lighter definition of patriarchy where it just refers to more power being held by men than women, sure, we live in a patriarchy. This is not the definition I see used most of the time, though. I more commonly see a definition where "men as a class have power over women as a class". This is a much stronger claim, and one I disagree with.

[–]exit_sandman4 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]Cbus_anonymous-1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Simple: because feminism claims it's "for men, too".

Do you have a source for this? You're the second person in this thread to make this claim, and both the people stating it for the most part are writing rationally and coherently (in opposition to the OP), so I tend to give the claim more credence, but I'd still like to see where you're pulling that from.

Also,

I think many of them sincerely believe that feminism helps men, too, even though they're wrong.

why would this be the case? A society that has vested interests in equality benefits all.

Lastly, I think this is a hugely debatable point:

You can say what you want about traditional societies, but the model where a family was a unit where one person provided for all of its members while another person was the caretaker of the children was pretty reliable.

Societies that practice this traditionally aren't set up the way you're suggesting. One member doesn't provide by themselves, and one member doesn't give all the childcare, they rely on villages and extended families. One major issue with a structure as you've suggested is that life happens, people have heart attacks, get cancer, etc., and should that happen to the only person who's allowed to be employed in your model, the entire family dies. Should the traditional husband decide to abscond, or go become an alcoholic, or abandon his traditional duties for any reason, the individuals who suffer the consequences are women and their children, both male and female. This alone should show you that equality is better for both sexes.

[–]ThisSiteIsDumbAndBad-2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]exit_sandman4 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

so you expect feminists to do things that are contrary to its own goals and philosophies in order to "help men" in a way you approve of?

I expect them not to lie. Yeah, this would be a nice start. Simply saying "sorry, feminism is about women and the betterment of our lot in society. If necessary at the expense of men. If you get thrown under the bus that's sad, but it isn't a priority for us." - which would be the truth. But I guess we'll never hear that.

Wait, I take that back. I think many of them sincerely believe that feminism helps men, too, even though they're wrong.

Do you think maintaining or reinforcing traditional gender roles is a better course for our culture?

Yes. If only because the current course of our society simply isn't sustainable in the long run, even if we disregard all other challenges (ecological, socio-economical etc.). You can say what you want about traditional societies, but the model where a family was a unit where one person provided for all of its members while another person was the caretaker of the children was pretty reliable. I don't see the feminist script working out for more than very few generations; unfortunately at the moment we're right in the middle of it.

[–]ThisSiteIsDumbAndBad-2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]exit_sandman3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ThisSiteIsDumbAndBad-1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TiaThrowaway1234563 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Just found this comment and I really have to give you a reply here:

If you don't accept the basic framework of Feminism (that a society in which men hold most of the power hurts everyone, but hurts women worse),

Objectively speaking, in our society, men are hurt worse. We are killed and injured more often in every conceivable situation, we work ourselves to death more, we are given fewer resources to help us or protect us when we are vulnerable or in need, and we are punished more harshly for our crimes, and no-one seems to care, especially not feminists. All we get is 'male tearz, grow up and get a job and MAN UP and PROTECT WOMENNNN!' which is a little disconcerting from the people who say they are against gender roles.

The basic framework of feminism is wrong.

I can't imagine why you would think Feminism should do your activism for you.

So much for 'feminism is for everyone'. If you turn it into an opportunity for men to go out and protect women, you might as well rename it the 'Chivalry and Traditional Values Society' and have done with it.

The most radical, most genderbreaking behaviour a woman could engage in is to protect men. The most traditional, most genderconformist behaviour a woman could engage in is to beg men for protection.

Which is it feminists do?

[–]ThisSiteIsDumbAndBad-1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

All we get is 'male tearz, grow up and get a job and MAN UP and PROTECT WOMENNNN!'

This is an example of the kind of specific gender roles that Feminism has always worked to end. So are the rest of your examples.

I disagree about who is "hurt worse" by rigid gender roles, but either way, the only seriously organized movement to abolish them is being mounted by Feminism.

The basic framework of feminism is wrong.

Feminism wants to establish equality between men and women. One of the ways this can be achieved is by abolishing strict gender roles.

Where's the wrong part, exactly?

So much for 'feminism is for everyone'.

Even if you don't get it, feminism benefits you by breaking down strict gender roles.

That doesn't mean feminists are going to work against their own interests in order to fight for exactly the opposite of what they believe, just because you think they should.

This is the most ludicrous discussion ever.

You're anti-feminist. I get it. You think they're wrong, etc. etc. But yet you think they should do something for you. What the fuck?

The most radical, most genderbreaking behaviour a woman could engage in is to protect men.

Feminism is protecting men by attempting to dismantle strict gender roles. Which is something you have said you are against!

woman could engage in is to beg men for protection.

The last thing feminism is about is "begging men for protection."

[–]TiaThrowaway1234564 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

This is an example of the kind of specific gender roles that Feminism has always worked to end. So are the rest of your examples.

I disagree about who is "hurt worse" by rigid gender roles, but either way, the only seriously organized movement to abolish them is being mounted by Feminism.

I feel like posting the 'No U' guy here.

I specifically mentioned that it was feminists doing those things - and has been for a while. Not that they were the only ones.

I also asserted that feminism is not a movement to end gender roles because feminist women beg men for protection. You have re-asserted that it is, but give no reason why (or why my point is wrong).

Where's the wrong part, exactly?

You stated that women are hurt worse by male dominance than men. I said, 'This is wrong, here's why'. You called that statement the basic framework of feminism. Therefore, the basic framework of feminism is wrong.

Even if you don't get it, feminism benefits you by breaking down strict gender roles.

It is not doing this.

That doesn't mean feminists are going to work against their own interests in order to fight for exactly the opposite of what they believe, just because you think they should.

This sounds a great deal like the sort of thing someone who was ignorant of their privilege would say. As long as feminism demands special protections and entitlements for women, and rights for them, while denying men those entitlements and privileges, it certainly cannot call itself a movement for equality.

This is the most ludicrous discussion ever.

Don't be too hard on yourself, you're doing fine. Encountering radical new ideas that strike at the root of your identity is a very difficult thing to experience.

You're anti-feminist. I get it. You think they're wrong, etc. etc. But yet you think they should do something for you. What the fuck?

Part of the reason feminists are wrong is because they are hypocrites. They claim to dislike gender roles, but constantly reinforce them, usually for women's benefit and at men's expense.

I also outlined a way of radically breaking gender roles. I find it interesting that you don't see it that way.

The last thing feminism is about is "begging men for protection."

Emma Watson disagrees.

[–]TomHicksAntifeminist sans pills3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThisSiteIsDumbAndBad -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[–]pillburtRed Pill Mana mana7 points8 points9 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThisSiteIsDumbAndBad-2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TomHicks7 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pillburt5 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ThisSiteIsDumbAndBad-3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pillburt6 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ThisSiteIsDumbAndBad-2 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]pillburt6 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThisSiteIsDumbAndBad-4 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]exit_sandman4 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

I am talking about the gem you quoted last - that feminism seeks to end the resulting legal problems that are a consequence

There's one thing about feminism - apart from a few sincere members who actually put some thought into what equality actually means (hint: it's not "women are more equal than men" in the Orwellian sense), I can't recall feminists having put much energy into complaining about instances where they received favorable treatment - the legal system least of it. In fact, here they have incessantly labored

for extending and diluting the concept of a specific crime where men are overwhelmingly the perpetrators and women are overwhelmingly the victims (rape)
against recognizing instances of crimes where women are overwhelmingly or even exclusively the perpetrators and men are overwhelmingly or even exclusively the victims, or even fighting against making the crime recognized as being a crime in the first place (false rape accusations, paternity fraud)
for pushing a narrative that pins specific crimes that are actually a lot more balanced pretty much exclusively on males (DV)

And this is just when it comes to instances that are specifically male/female, I never heard a feminist complaining about women getting of lightly in other regards either. So if you're saying that feminism is for equality before the law, you're either delusional or lying.

[–]ThisSiteIsDumbAndBad-1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]exit_sandman4 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ThisSiteIsDumbAndBad-1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]exit_sandman5 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ThisSiteIsDumbAndBad3 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]exit_sandman7 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Has reddit really gotten to the point where anything but regarding feminism as evil and/or wrong can be written off as "trolling?"

Why are you even having a discussion if your only tactic is to accuse a person who disagrees with you of arguing in bad faith, even when he clearly is not?

"Clearly" :cough:

But on the off-chance that you actually are arguing in good faith... no, I had lengthy discussions with feminists in here. Not particularly productive ones, but it's not as if we didn't try; and I didn't feel compelled to question their sincerity. However, when I am arguing with something who is (deliberately?) misinterpreting what I am saying not as an exception, but as the rule, I don't see any use in any further discussion.

Bottom line - if you're a troll there is no use at all in any debate for obvious reasons; and if you aren't, having to dumb down everything so you get it without handholding is too tedious to go through with it. Either way this exchange is over.

[–]ThisSiteIsDumbAndBad-1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]exit_sandman4 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Demonstration of the lacking ability to infer obvious meaning behind a comment:

Where are the feminists that say women are "more equal than men?"

Of course you won't find many feminists who would explicitly say that (and those who would do it are usually at the fringes of the movement) - the movement as a whole just for all intents and purposes acts that way.

Demonstration of an utter lack of reading comprehension:

I expect [feminists] not to lie. [...]

So you're opposed to the core motivation of Feminism, but you think Feminists should do more to further your goals.

How dense can you be to get this out of what I said? I mean, really?! That is what you call "arguing in good faith" and then have the galls to wonder why I think I'm wasting my time with you?

Sorry, I'm not in the mood to disassemble each and every statement of mine because you're only capable of processing sentences with zero amount of ambiguity.

It's not because you got your shit handed to you, though.

Yeah yeah, if you say so. Have a nice day.

[–]ThisSiteIsDumbAndBad0 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Of course you won't find many feminists who would explicitly say that

Oh, I see. So I have to "read between the lines" of these wily feminists, and then I'd understand that when they say "We want equality between the sexes" they mean "we want inequality between the sexes."

So, OK, Where are the Feminists who are cleverly hiding their real agenda (that you have seen through, of course)?

the movement as a whole just for all intents and purposes acts that way.

Other than your totally heartfelt belief, can you provide any evidence at all of Feminism hiding its actual agenda?

How has it managed to pull off this massive hoax and fooled so many for so many years?

It always comes down to huge worldwide conspiracies with people like you - the hidden knowledge they don't want us to know! but somehow, you have seen through the veil, and you can tell us the true intentions of the feminists or Illuminati or whatever. So fucking stupid.

you're only capable of processing sentences with zero amount of ambiguity.

Yeah, dude, that must be it. It's not because you can't/won't express your views in a way that makes discernible sense at all.

It's not that you're asserting opinions as fact and backing them up by saying, "Look at the movement as a whole!"

It's that I'm too dense to understand your complicated ideas. Uh-huh.

Here's a tip though: Try not being ambiguous and just say what you mean.

[–]roteroktober1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThisSiteIsDumbAndBad-5 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]roteroktober6 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]ThisSiteIsDumbAndBad-4 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]brooklynzoo22 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ThisSiteIsDumbAndBad1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]epicureanmanslut 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

It's a fundamental principle of both Marxism and Feminism that gender roles are set by society, and could be set differently in another society and that any and all such changes are possible.

It turns out that's not the case. That society isn't setting the roles. That society is responding to the natural biological preferences of the vast majority of men and women.

So when the commies tried to make "the ideal socialist man", and when other communities have also tried massive alteration, the result has either been misery and collapse OR misery, then terror preventing collapse for a sustained period, then collapse.

It's the same shit. It makes people unhappy. Society responds to people's wants. And in the large aggregate they are very biologically predictable. When you run against it people lose out on what they want and they get pissed off about it.

So. That's what it has to do with gender. You ain't got the guns the old commies did. But you're making the same mistake. You are assuming society sets the roles, and you can reset those roles to be better for all.

And you are causing misery, already for the guys and increasingly for the girls.

Because you can't. They want what they want. Not what you want them to want and you're fucking their lives up more and more.

[–]ThisSiteIsDumbAndBad 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheGreasyPoleObjectively Pro-moderate filth2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Not me. I tripped across it. Science worked it out.

Humans aren't infinitely malleable, and it turns out there are biological limits on what they can stand, what they can feel happy within, at least in the aggregate.

It made a lot of sense of previously strange results, things like the failure of the Israeli Kibutzim and the communal setup there.

Now we can argue all you like where the limits are, and I suspect they are much closer in than you might originally think, but it's beyond reasonable debate that such limits exist now.

Marxists, where they insist human societies are infinitely malleable, and feminists when they assert the same, are making a big mistake. the harder you push it, the bigger the mistake.

The commies pushed it really fucking hard. And the feminists are starting to push against it harder and harder.

I should know. I'm pretty far out on the left wing myself. Im not talking about my political enemy here. The commies and the feminists are on my side. I can see their flaws perfectly well nevertheless.

[–]ThisSiteIsDumbAndBad1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheGreasyPole1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Oh, it's true. I'm a left wing Brit. That puts me easily to the left of everyone in the US excepting Berne Sanders.

Spent about 18 months as an anarchist. A shorter period as a Troyskyist "Seeeeeewshialist weeerker ! Get your seewscialist werker here ! Cadre sez I have to shift 50 copies or make it up out of my own capitalist slave wage. Seeeeewscialist Werker !".

Still way out on the left. Just can't sign into the old guard no more. Need a new left. Equivalent to a DE out here in commie land. Another shot at the new paradigm the left last out together 1880-1900 England. Putting the left back on a better philosophical basis. Nice red flag with a gold '@' symbol replacing the hammer and sickle. That's what I want.

How would a state monopoly in medicine strike you ? How about nationalising the railways, energy and national telecommunications and energy networks ? What about estate taxes around the 60-80% level ? Folding of capital gains tax into income tax so the rich pay the exact same rates as working men ?

Scared you into calling me a commie yet ?

I'm pretty left wing. I don't think your "can we do a kind of Medicare for all" that is the far left positions in the US even comes close. In my country obamacare would be a right wing monstrosity.

We can see the truth in RP too you know. Doesn't stop me being left wing any. I'd ditched the feminists long before RP, when it became clear they'd been taken over by fuckwits.

[–]huzaifa960 points 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheGreasyPole1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]TheJollySatandropping truth bombs since 84-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

When people notice these inequalities exist and have existed in the past

Unfortunately feminism doesn't ask enough questions as to why those inequalities existed which caused it to fuck up it's theories. It failed to consider the power separation between the 1% at the top, their wives, and the rest of the peasants. At this scale a high status wife or a 1% is going to have magnitude more agency than when compared the rest of the peasants. Gender may influence power but it is of a much smaller scale than the power a few 1% men derived from their wealth and bloodlines. The comparison is invalid, it needs to take into consideration that the family/status/class is more likely to be a factor when an individual has a great deal more agency than a typical person.

One other thing that it fails to consider is that power being concentrated in an individual or group can sometimes be a good thing. If the right person/group wields it, it can and has been used for a source of stability and prosperity. So if we look at the top, why were they mainly men? An assertive, competitive, more masculine thinking would have been beneficial to leaders trying to keep their people together by the strength they can project. Of course gender roles bouncing and biology are going to result in more men typically falling into this category. There will be outliers everywhere from both genders.

Looking at this in a historical context, it's not necessarily a problem, it was a necessity, the world can be a shit place, but it has grown a lot and we are in the position where women have the opportunity to exert their agency if they want to. So when you recognize and discuss the fact that men did hold almost all the positions of power, spare a moment to give them some credit for getting us this far in between their job of suppressing ~~women~~ peasants.

should they just shut up about it because it might make some people angry?

No, they should just acknowledge all the reasons behind why it happened without creating judgement that can only paint men as sociopaths and psychos. Even if they are only drawing that conclusion about men in the past, the narrative is still going to stick to today's men like glue by the trope it creates. Of course they will get pissed.

[–]ThisSiteIsDumbAndBad 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheJollySatandropping truth bombs since 840 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

You miss my point, look up the difference between conflict theory and structural functionalism. Feminism suffers a similar problem to conflict theory in that it focuses on the negative effects of that have resulted from differences. Feminism inherented this from its Marxist peers when it came up with gender oppression theories in the 60s. There are other theories thay look at the benefits of how different structures hold society together. Use the different gender as those structures and you get a structural functional approach to gender. The closest feminism gets to this approach is with its gender difference theories which came with first wave academics. It's main focus was still on fixing the results of inequality while acknowledging those innate differences exist. A functional approach to gender gives a focus on the benefits of those differences and how it contributes to society. This is badly needed to balance out current social policy which results in the Duluth model, campus rape hysteria and fatherless families.

[–]ThisSiteIsDumbAndBad 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TheJollySatandropping truth bombs since 840 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]roteroktober0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]alcockell0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]dakruNeither1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]dakruNeither1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TylerPaul-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]smokingmonkey420 -4 points-3 points-2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]curiouspeach 3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]smokingmonkey420 -4 points-3 points-2 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Nazrath2112Blood Splatter Red0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MagicGainbowKeepin' it real, havin' a feel2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]CarkudoThe original opinionated omega1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]MagicGainbowKeepin' it real, havin' a feel-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]CarkudoThe original opinionated omega1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TRPACC 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]5th_Law_of_Robotics0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]hopefullyhelpfulplz3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheChemist158Non-Feminist Blue Pill Woman12 points13 points14 points 11 years ago (33 children) | Copy Link

[–]AmericanHistoryAFBBI'm Back[S] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheChemist158Non-Feminist Blue Pill Woman9 points10 points11 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]AmericanHistoryAFBBI'm Back[S] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TheChemist158Non-Feminist Blue Pill Woman2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 11 years ago* (26 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]dakruNeither1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago* (22 children) | Copy Link

These are not equivalent. Not even close.

Some of the language certainly seems pretty similar. A lot of feminists talk about "male entitlement" while a lot of RPers talk about "female entitlement", for example. That's one example of a general trend of each movement taking a bad trait that can be held by either gender but arguing that it's actually much more common in one gender (and from that, treating it as gendered).

In this particular case it's especially funny because it's the same trait that they're both arguing is more common in the other gender, although other examples include feminism's talk of "mansplaining" and TRP's talk of "female solipsism".

Feminists also talk about how men are blind to their privileges, while RPers talk about how women are blind to their privileges.

There are a lot of differences between the two groups/movements but there are also a lot of parallels (mostly involving feminism being much more critical of men and open to seeing and focusing on their flaws, and TRP doing a similar thing but for women).

[–]theroyalalastor2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]AmericanHistoryAFBBI'm Back[S] 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]theroyalalastor2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]IramadanceRed Pill Man-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]theroyalalastor0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]exit_sandmanstill not the MGTOW sandman FFS-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]huzaifa96-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Okay, so I'm new to TRP sub-reddit. I started out looking for useful hobbies and self improvement at 15, around Danger and Play, Art of Manliness; over a year or two, I became accustomed to the ideals of manhood, femininity, anarcho-capitalism, survival of the fittest, etc. I believe I am both a traditionalist and a futurist (when people can modify their own bodies and sexuality) . I am not a blank-slater.

Aside from traditionalist ideals, what I notice the sub-reddit to get hate for is the stuff that some of them (MGTOW, PUA-type guys) dislike themselves.

I see plenty of "Red Pillers" as they call themselves, denounce actively, marriage and the classic partnership, while lamenting women's faults. Aren't we supposed to balance each other out? I'm very confused on the stance of the Red Pill

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]dakruNeither0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]AmericanHistoryAFBBI'm Back[S] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[removed]

[–]ThisSiteIsDumbAndBad1 point 11 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

[–]SabineLavine0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]dakruNeither-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ThisSiteIsDumbAndBad 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]SabineLavine-3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago* (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]AmericanHistoryAFBBI'm Back[S] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AmericanHistoryAFBBI'm Back[S] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThisSiteIsDumbAndBad 2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AmericanHistoryAFBBI'm Back[S] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]epicureanmanslut -2 points-1 points0 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]luxo42 6 points7 points8 points 11 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]drok007Not white enough to be blue pill13 points14 points15 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]SabineLavine2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AmericanHistoryAFBBI'm Back[S] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]luxo42 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]BeyondTheLight1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AmericanHistoryAFBBI'm Back[S] -1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]lifesbrinkOutside of your boxes1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]huzaifa960 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Cbus_anonymous 5 points6 points7 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

Do you have any links to support any of your claims? Feminism doesn't blame men for causing women's problems, it blames society, its norms and mores. TRP, on the other hand, overtly suggests misogyny as a strategy for relating to half the population of the earth, and furthermore, presents selfishness as being the "right" way of doing everything. And, in order to justify itself, it predicates its claims on a lot of logical fallacies, without getting into direct names, it, similar to the kid's story "The Emperor's New Clothes", relies on calling you names if you don't agree with every stupid thing they suggest. TRP actually reduces men to sullen children, IME of dealing with them. Ironic, but it strips them of their adult qualities.

None of this has to do with TBP. Never having been on that subreddit, I can't say I speak for their ideologies, but my understanding is that they just troll the redpill trolls?

I haven't any idea what any of those terms you just listed mean, except for how both patriarchy and privilege are generally used. How are either of those terms sexist to you? Do you feel equally offended when someone uses the term matriarchy?

You don't seem to have any grasp of what feminism is, however, if you're religious, I could see how you would believe that an ideology that teaches women that it's healthy and ok to have a sex drive and operate on that drive would equate to "spawning sluts", but, of course, the corollary question is do you feel the same way about men? What's going into your thinking that it spawns cheaters?

No one calls men that sleep around players or users. People that are players or users use deception to get women in bed; the number of people they engage is irrelevant. And use of deception to sleep with people is considered negative by both sexes.

I think things would be clearer for you if you actually looked up what feminism is, rather than just selling yourself on a narrative that suits your desire to hate.

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[removed]

[–]Cbus_anonymous 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

I pulled these gems from the first four things i read, linked as reading for red pillers on that subreddit:

Ex. 1: Men have been, and should be, the more dominant gender, not because of some imagined divine right or physical prowess, but because on some rudimentary psychological level we ought to realized that a woman’s love is contingent upon our capacity to maintain that love in spite of a woman’s hypergamy.

Ex. 2: Hypergamy, by its nature, defines love for women in opportunistic terms, leaving men as the only objective arbiters of what love is for themselves. So yes, men can’t tell when a woman doesn’t love them, because they want to believe women can love them in the ways they think they could.

Ex. 3: There are methods and social contrivances women have used for centuries to ensure that the best male’s genes are selected and secured with the best male provisioning she’s capable of attracting. Ideally the best Man should exemplify both, but rarely do the two exist in the same male (particularly these days) so in the interest of achieving her biological imperative, and prompted by an innate need for security, the feminine as a whole had to develop social conventions and methodologies (which change as her environment and personal conditions do) to effect this. Men are not only up against a female genetic imperative, but also centuries long feminine social conventions established and adapted from a time long before human beings could accurately determine genetic origins.

Ex. 4: When i read it or stories like it, these are the THINGS I FEEL (and yes, i know ‘feelings’ are the domain of a woman) • When i hear a woman tell me that she’s gone through a dry spell and not had sex in over X weeks/ months.. i feel like putting my fist through her face. • When i hear a woman tell me that she feels ugly or unloved or unwanted because her partner hasn’t touched her in over 6 months, i feel like laughing loudly 3 inches from her face. • When i hear a woman tell me that she just picked up a random guy for a night of fun because she was lonely, i feel like i’m glad i don’t own a gun. • When i hear a woman tell me that i shouldn’t feel bad about having gone without for so long, after all it’s only just sex, i feel like disfiguring her face with a scalpel.

I'm positive there are far better examples, but that's what wallowing in this trash provided me within the first ten minutes of perusing.

[–]AmericanHistoryAFBBI'm Back[S] -5 points-4 points-3 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Cbus_anonymous 4 points5 points6 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

In addition to not comprehending feminism, you also seem to have problems with the core structure underwriting logic. "Throwing down" examples that other people are bitter doesn't counter a claim that your group is bitter, nor does it suggest that the obvious bitterness and misogyny demonstrated by the red pill are acceptable. It just demonstrates that other groups are bitter.

But that's besides the point. You're incapable of providing sources for your claims because they don't exist on credible sites. The blogger that TRP appears to worship (maybe he started TRP? I have no idea) may have defined feminism for you in the variation that you're using, but it's lazy and intellectually vacant, similar to the rest of what he purports is "logic". Feminism attempts to address the structures underwriting inequality for women, and attacks public policies and folklore far more often than a given sex.

[–]wonderingwhether54Non-Red Pill3 points4 points5 points 11 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]AmericanHistoryAFBBI'm Back[S] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]theroyalalastor0 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[deleted]

[–]huzaifa96-1 points0 points1 point 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]surfboard_watermelon 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AmericanHistoryAFBBI'm Back[S] -3 points-2 points-1 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]17b29a2 points3 points4 points 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]wazzup987Blue pill, you can beat me black & blue for it later[🍰] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 11 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[removed]

[–]wazzup987Blue pill, you can beat me black & blue for it later[🍰] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]VermiciousKnidzzBlue Pill Man1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]AmericanHistoryAFBBI'm Back[S] 1 point2 points3 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RedPill1150 points1 point2 points 11 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Comments