Sexist Beatdown: Manly Masculine Male Edition
A couple of guys just hangin' out.
Two important developments in the World of Men this week:
1. A group of scholars, led by a man with the almost suspiciously masculine name of Lionel Tiger, established a new discipline of gender studies: Male Studies. Male Studies differs from the already existing discipline of Men's Studies in that it is devoted to studying the "male as male," as opposed to the "male as Easter Bunny" or whatever Men's Studies is passing off as scholarly research nowadays. Also, Male Studies really fucking resents Women's Studies. Cage match, anyone?
2. Sady Doyle of Tiger Beatdown, the preeminent scholar in the field of Lady Business Studies, invited some men to talk about their experiences for once. Sady's Visions of Manliness series (see A, B, and C) has addressed stuff like the simultaneous marginalization and privilege of trans men, ironically homophobic sports blogging, and how deeply Valentine's Day truly blows. Strangely, none of the posts are about how feminists have stolen their male identity, trampled upon their masculine phenomenon, and overall been super mean. In other words, this is total Men's Studies shit.
In this edition of Sexist Beatdown, Sady and I YELL ABOUT THESE THINGS AND ALSO bell hooks SO JOIN US!
SADY: hello, Fellow Lady Person!
AMANDA: Why hello! I am prepared to speak about the experiences of . . . Men People.
SADY: About which I know, I will tell you, not a whole lot! Like, I have known Men People throughout my lifetime. Sometimes in the sense that they are related to me! Or friends! Or I have known them BIBLICALLY! But also, like, pursuant to the Liz Lemonism critique of Times Past, I feel like I am privileged in 99% of the ways that people can be privileged on this our planet Earth. And it frustrates me — and has been a schism in The Feminist History — that, as a lady who is so very fucking privileged, I'm allowed to concentrate so much on my own Oppression By The Man and not notice that some of The Men are going through their own bullshit.
AMANDA: Right. In the Oppression Olympics, I would not qualify for the finals. I would be disqualified in the first heat. I also am really no good with sports metaphors!
SADY: Well, The Man has staked his claim in those. BASICALLY WE NEED TO TAKE THE QUARTERBACK OF DISCOURSE TO THE GOAL NET OF DISCUSSION TO SCORE A HOME RUN HAT TRICK OF ANTI-OPPRESSION THEORY! Is my understanding.
AMANDA: I plan on blaming all of my deficiencies in forming metaphors, drawing conclusions, and overall making sense on my Oppression today. For the record.
SADY: I intuitively understand you, due to my woman's intuition. But, like, this is a long-standing Beef within the feminist community, in fact. Like, bell hooks covered it along with approximately everybody else.
AMANDA: Yeah, I mean, a distinction must be made between men and The Man.
SADY: Right. We oversimplify. And a ton of feminists have needed to clarify that "when we say 'men,' we mean the Platonic ideal of 'men!' The way 'men' are encouraged to behave and act and such!" And as a person who types the words 'dudes' and 'men' a lot, I am sympathetic. Because we DO need a word to denote all that junk. But, to revisit bell hooks for JUST A SECOND, here is how that works out in practice: Some white feminist ladies walk up to some ladies of color, and are like "join the cause, sister!" And the ladies of color are like, "sure, I've experienced sexism, let's go. On the way, can we talk about how you white ladies are enacting some bullshit that hurts me and also the men in my community?" And then the white ladies are like, "YOU ARE SO MALE-IDENTIFIED. WHY CAN'T YOU JOIN OUR GLORIOUS SISTERHOOD AND IDENTIFY AS A WOMAN FIRST."
AMANDA: Allow me to flip that dynamic around for a second, as I think the distinction between "Men's Studies" and the totally brand new discipline of "Male Studies" helps to illustrate that point. So, "Male Studies" just had its first conference on Wednesday, to declare "Male Studies" a thing, even though "Men's Studies" already exists and is welcoming of all who study men and masculinity. And the reason "Male Studies" has decided to branch off from "Men's Studies" is that Men's studies thinks too much about Women's Studies.
SADY: Oh, dear.
AMANDA: When there is just no reason to segregate these two studies, of course.
SADY: Well, unless you want to teach an entire seminar on barbecue grilling!
AMANDA: And I think feminism suffers from the impulse to segregate the experiences of people and treat our cultural systems (patriarchy, masculinity, femininity, race, class) as separate fields, and I think my work often suffers from that distinction, actually.
SADY: Well, I mean, to be honest, mine does, too. Mostly due to my vast narcissism, and the fact that I write mostly about my own experiences!
AMANDA: Right.
SADY: You could run over my foot with a shopping cart at the Costco, and I'd write this very ideological post that was like, "SHOPPING CART PRIVILEGE: Does It Lead You To Run Over My Foot, and Are You A Monster? Yes."
AMANDA: But it's a very tricky thing to attempt to write about the experiences of others, and that's why your masculinity series is so great! TIGER BEATDOWN PLUG!
SADY: Which is why I try to bring other people into the discussion.
AMANDA: But what about, in addition to bringing in these voices, also writing about issues that don't directly affect us and which we can't talk about from personal experience? I think it's important to do that too, but I think it's a lot trickier.
SADY: Right. And also, you have to be open to getting yelled at! Is my experience!
AMANDA: Agreed!
SADY: Because there's a big difference between "speaking about these things that do not affect me directly" and "speaking FOR these people who are having these experiences because I am A GENIUS and get your experience way better than you do." But, like, it is easy to cross the line?
AMANDA: Yeah. It is. And that's where the productive yelling comes in.
SADY: So you have to be a good listener, ESPECIALLY when people are yelling.
AMANDA: But, so, then I also sometimes get yelled at if I write about how something affects men? I get the "O but what about the menz!!!!!" comments. I don't know why it's written like an Internet cat is saying it, but it is. Even though I write about women a whole lot!
SADY: They are all basically internet cats, those dudes, though. Like, if you write a post about Vajazzling, to use a totally fictional example, and people are like, "did you know some dudes get CIRCUMSIZED??? Monstrous! Your vagina post has inspired me to talk about the ill fates of penises, instead, and at length!' Like, at a certain point, the "WHAT ABOUT ME" posts from dudes are just blatantly obnoxious, and blatantly intended to keep women from writing about their OWN experiences of manliness, ill or well.
AMANDA: Yeah. I have a good friend who is hurt that I don't write on the expectations on men to move furniture for girls.
SADY: OH MY GOD. OPPRESSION! I too am disappointed that you have not covered this topic Amanda! Also: Being asked to open pickle jars. WORSE THAN DEATH???
AMANDA: Well I'm waiting to roll out my big investigative series. On the possible lingering lower back problems.
SADY: "Once I Had To Carry Your Books Up Some Stairs: A Post About Traumatic Experiences, By A Dude."
AMANDA: But, I write about a lot of really minor shit that women are expected to do and about how these very little things are reminders of society's expectations of men and women. And a lot of times men get really pissed when I do that, too! For it is annoying to be forced to think about.
SADY: Right. I mean, here's the thing: I'm a lady who gets called out on my privilege. A lot. As I see it, my job description is: Write about lady stuff, try to remember not all ladies have exactly the same life as I do, listen when ladies with different lives are like "uh, you missed something." So the plague of dudes on the Internet who are like, "WHAT DO YOU MEAN LADIES EXPERIENCE THINGS DIFFERENTLY THAN I DO, SOMETIMES NOT WELL?!???!" Like: I try to listen to people EVERY SINGLE DAY, dude, and I haven't actually had an aneurysm and died yet, so maybe it's not actually that fucking hard. You know? The Internet is not a thousand little knives stabbing you in the face. The Internet is some people talking. In conclusion, calm down.
AMANDA: Yeah. And that's when things get tough, for me, when we start talking about the experiences of men like that. Because it's so obvious how our culture is constructed to make guys like that never have to—and to actually avoid—listening to a woman's experience, just as it's constructed to help white people avoid listening to anyone else, and straight people, and cis people, &c.
SADY: Yeah. But then you have things like "Male Studies," where "The male as male will be permitted to appear in all his complexity as new values are being forged and traditional values that have proven the test of time are affirmed."
SADY: And I get the feeling those traditional values that have proven the test of time kind of involve OPPRESSING THE VAST MAJORITY OF MALES???
AMANDA: Yes. And that traditional man has always been permitted to appear. It's all the other men who haven't. But Male Studies cuts them out of the picture when it devotes itself to "males as males," as if we're only talking about one very clearly defined and biologically determined type of person.
SADY: Right. Because "the male as male" means cisgendered. It means straight. It means white. It means, like, a lot of shit! Actually! As it is commonly employed! Everybody else, if they can even get recognized as dudes, is treated in the discourse as, "well, okay, you're a dude. But a SUBSET of dude. We have trouble imagining you as a character on 'Mad Men,' so, like, clearly you're not a part of the glorious history of The Male As Male to the same extent." But here's the thing. The ominous thing that I always phrase in a manner that brings to mind, like, the James Cameron movie 'Aliens.'
AMANDA: Okay.
SADY: All of those dudes excluded from the discourse of Traditional Old-Fashioned-Swilling Wife-Cheating-On Empowered Non-Chest-Waxing Masculinity? And all of the ladies? Add it up. THERE ARE MORE OF US than there are of anyone else. Which is why we need to start fucking talking to each other more.
AMANDA: This reminds me more of that Beyonce song than Aliens, but I see what you're getting at.
SADY: Like, if we start looking at "masculinity" as this very exclusive concept that has all of these other concepts and privileges packed into it, then we get to my I Went To Liberal Arts College And Have Simplistic Ideas Place where, like... we can create a discourse without you, substantially, Ultimately Privileged People. If we can get over our own bullshit and have each others' backs, we can do a lot. And maybe this conversation needs to take place on THOSE terms. Provided you're okay with getting yelled at when you fuck it up. Also, I have had three beers, because it's hot. THE REVOLUTION WILL NOT BE SOBER!
AMANDA: NO IT WILL NOT. And I will fight to the death for men to gain the right to drink as much as women do without being labeled irresponsible sluts who deserve whatever is coming to them.
SADY: Yes! Also, that person who ran over my foot in the Costco: A MONSTER. I think we need to centralize this issue. Because that hurt.
AMANDA: Kumbayah!
Photo via George Eastman House
9:54 am
"But what about, in addition to bringing in these voices, also writing about issues that don’t directly affect us and which we can’t talk about from personal experience? I think it’s important to do that too, but I think it’s a lot trickier."
Sounds like a job for... a journalist. And he or she could have a column about sex (gender and the act) issues and identity! But seriously, that and the comment about "the impulse to segregate the experiences of people [...]" really gets to why I find your work so myopic.
What if Tim Carman only reviewed tapas restaurants? Or if Orr only had time for Belgian beers?
10:29 am
Hey Keith B, if you want to read a reported column about sex (gender and the act) issues and identity, you should probably read my column in the newspaper, which is always reported, and not read this blog, which is sometimes reported and often commentary.
11:10 am
Also, Mr. B, this is possibly just a nitpicky female-type thing, but sex != gender. Sex is at the chromosomal level and gender is a social (and mostly patriarchal) construct. Perhaps Ms Hess is writing about lady things because that distinction almost never gets made except by ladies and those who fight with crazy feminist ladies, and it'd be nice if more people tried to make that distinction sometimes. Is it maybe possibly the case that lady people experience things differently BECAUSE they are lady people? That's what this is about. We as ladies can write about BEING ladies so that other ladies can relate and non-ladies can look and go "OHHH so that's what it might sort of be like for this section of ladydom!"
Less myopic, more expressive of a relatively misunderstood culture, in the humble lady opinion that is my own.
11:25 am
Also: Being asked to open pickle jars. WORSE THAN DEATH???
you had me rolling!!! Thank you so much for this awesome dialogue
1:25 pm
Amanda, you missed your calling as a fast food worker.
You serve up a shame sandwich pretty nifty.
It must be hell for you, what with more and more men deciding to toss this kind of junk food in the garbage and opt for a better diet.
Male studies, if they can get it past paranoid feminists who hear voices, but only the ones they want to, will bring the unthinkable to academia.
Some balance.
I know, the mere thought is a nightmare. But you know what they say. If you can't take the heat, get back in the kitchen.
1:44 pm
Mmm... delicious shame sandwich! I just wish I had some slut-sauce to spice it up and a little propaganda garnish on the side! (Perhaps with pickles?)
I'm a little mystified by your final metaphor tho: I thought Amanda was already in her cyberladyblogkitchen, serving up manshame, made to order? Or perhaps you are requesting she rework her rhetorical salads into something more attractive to the male palate, like a big slice of Submission Steak? With some Privileged Potatoes on the side?
2:38 pm
Paul, is the idea that people should receive equal pay for equal work something that requires "balance" from an opposing viewpoint?
Is the idea that I have the right to go about my daily life without being raped something that requires "balance" from an opposing viewpoint?
Is the idea that I should have equal rights to housing, education, medical care, and employment something that requires "balance" from an opposing viewpoint?
Is the idea that people should treat each other with respect and fairness something that requires "balance" from the viewpoint that some people have an inherent, inviolable predisposition to be douchebags to others and this entitles them to be revered and indulged?
I call bullshit.
3:26 pm
Is the idea that men are you know, human, too much to handle?
I think, I'm not sure because I'm only a dude, but if you prick me, I also bleed.
Not sure about this though. Since I can't think more than one thought at the same time, and I get distracted easily due to my inherent brain defect caused by my penis, could I get your call on whether men bleed when pricked so I can have a certified opinion sanctioned by your division of the sisterhood?
Thanks, awaiting your permission to bleed.
3:32 pm
Kristina,
Fair point on sex/gender there, I'm sorry. The subtitle of The Sexist even is "Sex *and* gender in the district" (which works cleverly on a couple levels). But it may as well be "One White Feminist Lady Person's Exclusive View on Sex and gender in the district". What seems myopic is that so much smacks of "my vision is the only correct one".
You could summarize this blog as:
- A.'s opinion on XYZ
- A. and another person (usually? mostly? always? a woman), agreeing with each other a bunch (Tiger Beatdown, interviews)
- A. bashing someone else's column / ideas (Dr. Laura, Uni sex advice columns)
- Rape!
I'm not saying these are bad things to post. But it's bad that it's ALL there is. How about an interview with a feminist whose views don't coincide exactly with yours (do they exist?)? Or something about what Sadie said about "how you white ladies are enacting some bullshit that hurts me and also the men in my community"? Didn't Amanda interview those LNS d-bags back in the day (was that just print? I thought it was the blog)? This column's just about become a pulpit.
And yes Amanda, I do appreciate the reported articles in the print edition. But I don't consider City Desk "Andrew's blog about city issues" so much as WCP's column about city issues. Does this make any sense?
3:37 pm
No, I didn't interview those LNS d-bags back in the day. That was some other lady.
3:41 pm
*My bad, I meant Mike not Andrew I think. And welp, The Sexist is listed under blogs in the header, but so's everything except Loose Lips and the syndicated stuff.
Sorry Amanda, hazy memory here I guess. Whatever, carry on.
3:51 pm
LeftSidePositive, people do receive equal pay for equal work and some people, receive lower pay for lesser work. It's called the job market.
You do have the right to go about your daily life without being raped. I know of no woman who is raped daily, do you? If you are raped, you have an entire legal and social industry ready to help you. That rape exists as a crime does not imply oppression of you or any other person. Now, if it was not classed as a crime, you would make sense. However, as it is, you are babbling.
Women make much more use of healthcare than men, are graduating college in greater numbers than men, keep houses on divorce unlike men, and occupy at least as many jobs as men.
With respect, what could you possibly mean by this litany of idiocy?
3:56 pm
SingleDad, could you please provide any evidence whatsoever that "the sisterhood" over here *doesn't* think of men as human? Could you please provide any evidence that "the sisterhood" *doesn't* think that men bleed when pricked?
4:20 pm
@ Left Side Positive
Paul, is the idea that people should receive equal pay for equal work something that requires “balance” from an opposing viewpoint?
----
Answer: It is only feminists, feminist "academicians," and an obtuse media that say otherwise. And this is one point of many of male studies. There is no gender wage gap regarding pay for the same work. None. Doesn't exist. But here you are, like a women's or gender studies major, passing off this bullshit as common knowledge.
Women make less money because of their choices. It is a fact that even the AAUW concludes, but hides. What they do is disseminate raw data that is not factor weighed for little things like education, hours worked and experience.
They count on people like you to read raw data results and then run around the internet screaming "Gender Pay Gap!"
And it works well.
----
Is the idea that I have the right to go about my daily life without being raped something that requires “balance” from an opposing viewpoint?
----
Answer:????? WTF? What does criminal law have to do with this. Are you asserting that women's studies prevents rape? That male studies would promote rape? That you are clueless?
____
Is the idea that I should have equal rights to housing, education, medical care, and employment something that requires “balance” from an opposing viewpoint?
-----
Answer: What you are trying to do here have anyone think that any of the aspects of you question are even true. You have as much right to those things as anyone, and arguably more. It's not like there is a National Office on Men's Health, and it is not like the lion's share of gender specific medical research doesn't go to women.
Your question is another case made for male studies.
---
Is the idea that people should treat each other with respect and fairness something that requires “balance” from the viewpoint that some people have an inherent, inviolable predisposition to be douchebags to others and this entitles them to be revered and indulged?
Answer: Respect? With phony assertions of pay gaps and other discriminations that don't exist? With implying that those who disagree with you are douchebags? I see that you define respect in the same way you do pay gap and discrimination.
---
I call bullshit.
Answer: No, you speak it.
4:23 pm
ManWomanMyth,
I think the litany of idiocy is yours.
As for equal pay for equal work--have you ever heard of Lilly Ledbetter? She was kept unaware that her male colleagues were getting raises for the same work she was doing, while she wasn't. This has only recently been made illegal. Are you not aware that women are more likely to be evaluated negatively in their job performance if they are assertive or ask for raises? Are you not aware that when women start to become well-represented in a field, it is all of a sudden seen as "less serious" and its wage growth slows down? The fact that you think this is a perfectly fair reflection of "the job market" shows how ingrained your prejudices are.
"Daily life" to most sane people, refers to normal routine activities. A negative consequence does not have to happen daily to severely affect one's daily life. You're being willfully obtuse.
Oh, and that "legal and social industry ready to help you"? Total bullshit. Just because something is classified as a crime does NOT mean that it is remotely effectively enforced. Did you read Ms. Hess's reporting just yesterday of how rape victims are treated? 15 out of 16 rapists never spend a day in jail.
"Women make much more use of healthcare than men." Thanks. I'll consider that very reassuring when I have to give birth to a child and you don't. When I have to shell out $60 per month for hormonal birth control and you don't. When insurance covers your Viagra but not my birth control.
Despite more women going to college (a very recent trend, btw), hiring preferences and seniority still mean that men have the most high-paying professional careers. In community property states at least, spouses are considered equal co-owners of assets and property acquired during the marriage, so I don't really know where your "keep the house" ideas come from. It is only recently (i.e. during this recession) that women's and men's absolute employment finally began to equalize, but even then that fails to account for the income disparities between types of professions.
4:32 pm
Keith, I understand your points, but I'm pretty sure Amanda is far from saying her view is the only right view and therefore we should be a crazed feminazibot occult. Amanda is paid to blog about issues that concern her. She doesn't have the audacity to attempt to blog about some foreign issue that she can't really speak to, which is highly commendable.
Amanda, I love your blog, but, alas, I can no longer read the comments section. I think my uterus started crying, and I don't think uteruses are supposed to do that. Maybe I should go ask a man.
Paul, There's no wage gap? Is it fun being a narcissist? Everything about you smacks narcissism and I-must-be-rightness. And, even though I'm a lowly feminist, I actually have training in diagnosis of mental disorders. Congrats on being a textbook case! Beware that pedestal, though, because the fall might sting a bit.
4:42 pm
I think most of what I wrote to ManWomanMyth answers Paul just as well, but here's another irksome bit of entitlement of his that I should address: women's wages are worse because of their "choices"? Really, the fact that careers that have typically been seen as "women's work," teaching, nursing, domestic work, aren't more-than-a-little underpaid? The disproportionate burdens of domestic and childcare responsibilities that fall to women couldn't possibly be a factor in these "choices" more than ladies chilling out with flowers and kittens?
What about the fact that women in many communities are actively discouraged from seeking out profitable careers? Just a few weeks ago, I was on the train at Disneyland, making small talk and mentioned that I was there on spring break from medical school. The man I was talking to said, "Oh, you're going to be a nurse?" NO, I said. MEDICAL SCHOOL. An MD program. To become a DOCTOR. If I were going to be a nurse, I would have fucking said I was in NURSING school. Now, this was just some idiot tourist at Disneyland--but what about all the women for whom asshats like that are their parents, friends, career counselors, and teachers?
4:59 pm
And Lily Ledbetter now serves as the anecdote by which we must evaluate the pay of 300 million other Americans. That an another list of assertions that have no bearing on the fact that women are paid the same as men for the same work.
But hey, if Lilly Ledbetter works for the pay gap all by her anecdotal self, I have three more names from the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case that we can use as poster children to address the subject of rape as a whole.
Weak bullshit.
5:19 pm
Maybe you should try this interview when you're sober Sady-person. I can't believe you published this drivel Amanda-person.
And you wonder why women aren't taken seriously.
5:24 pm
heres the latest study on the wage gap for all you deniers out there
consad.com/content/reports/Gender Wage Gap Final Report.pdf
consad is cornell's research department
also i have never seen any actual study saying 15/16 rapists are off the hook, harriet harman said it was around 60% and her own political party told her to stop lying http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1257981/Harriet-Harmans-unreliable-statistics-rape-scare-victims.html
5:24 pm
There is no wage gap.
If women got paid less, corporations would hire only women - and cut their costs by the mythical 25% (I have heard way too many numbers here, as high as 40% - but 25% seems to be the most re-occurring one).
It is up to women to see through this B.S., and sadly most of them do not. Politicians use this as a snake-like tactic to get their votes - and women shamelessly and senselessly fall for it.
5:34 pm
"The man I was talking to said, “Oh, you’re going to be a nurse?” NO, I said. MEDICAL SCHOOL. An MD program. To become a DOCTOR."
Oh my, boo freakin' hoo.
Two months ago a man filed a lawsuit against British Airways. He was removed from his seat on a plane and forced to sit away from his pregnant girlfriend because he happened to be seated next to an unescorted male youth. It is British Airways policy not to allow men to sit next to young people they are not with because of the fear that they could be a pedophile, despite the fact there are plenty of female pedophiles.
This wasn't someone's convoluted opinion, LSP, it was policy. All males are to be treated as potential pedophiles by British Airways.
Sorry, but it makes me put your little story about one person having thought you meant nursing school on my 'don't give a shit' list- pretty much at the top.
And besides, with the way you ignore good research, I find the idea of you with an M.D., or even R.N. after your name a little scary as well.
5:34 pm
"approximately everybody else."
Okay that's it, im out of here.
5:34 pm
Paul, Lily Ledbetter is still one more actual fact than you've cited AT ALL.
But, if you want some population analyses, please see here:
http://www.aauw.org/research/upload/behindPayGap.pdf
"The choice of major is not the full story, however. As early as one year after graduation, a pay gap is found between women and men who had the same college major. In edu- cation, a female-dominated major, women earn 95 percent as much as their male colleagues earn. In biological sci- ences, a mixed-gender major, women earn only 75 percent as much as men earn. Likewise in mathematics—a male- dominated major—women earn only 76 percent as much as men earn. Female students cannot simply choose a major that will allow them to avoid the pay gap."
and
"The pay gap between female and male college graduates cannot be fully accounted for by factors known to affect wages, such as experience (including work hours), training, education, and personal characteristics. Gender pay discrimi- nation can be overt or it can be subtle. It is difficult to docu- ment because someone’s gender is usually easily identified by name, voice, or appearance. The only way to discover discrim- ination is to eliminate the other possible explanations. In this analysis the portion of the pay gap that remains unexplained after all other factors are taken into account is 5 percent one year after graduation and 12 percent 10 years after graduation. These unexplained gaps are evidence of discrimination, which remains a serious problem for women in the work force."
http://www.womensmedia.com/new/Lips-Hilary-gender-wage-gap.shtml
"The movement of women into higher paid occupations, whether male-dominated or not, may not have the impact of narrowing the earnings gap. Social psychologists have demonstrated repeatedly that occupations associated with women or requiring stereotypically feminine skills are rated as less prestigious and deserving of less pay than occupations associated with men and masculine skills. Thus, as more and more women enter an occupation, there may be a tendency to value (and reward) that occupation less and less."
and
"Women are more likely than men to work part-time. However, most gender wage comparisons leave out part-time workers and focus only on full-time, year-round workers. A close look at the earnings of women and men who work 40 hours or more per week reveals that the wage gap may actually widen as the number of hours worked increases. Women working 41 to 44 hours per week earn 84.6% of what men working similar hours earn; women working more than 60 hours per week earn only 78.3% of what men in the same time category earn (Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics). Furthermore, women may work longer to receive the promotions that provide access to higher pay. For example, among school principals, women have an average of 3 years longer as teachers than men do (Source: National Center for Education Statistics). So it is hard to argue that women’s lower earnings are simply a result of women putting in fewer hours per week, or even fewer years than men."
5:45 pm
Thanks to the authoress for showcasing exactly why Male Studies is needed.
I am just ... disgusted and appalled by this drivel.
Minimising, and trivialising problems that men (as men) face, into ... "Dudes opening pickle jars." Honestly, this is sickening. Absolutely sickening. You appal me. I can't even express how much.
Four out of five suicides are male.
The vast majority of deaths on the job are male.
Who gets drafted? Men.
Who gets destroyed in divorce and family courts, ordered to pay extortionate alimony, and shoved in prison when they cannot keep up payments (that's after, being forced out onto the street, etc.).
Whose rape is made into a punchline?
Who isn't taken seriously when they claim domestic violence or rape? - conversely, who is shoved into prison and subjected to humiliating medical examinations, because women are automatically believed when they cry rape, truthfully or not?
Who has a good chance of ending up as someone's "prison wife," repeatedly raped inside a jail cell for the duration of their sentence with nowhere to escape?
Who is convicted more often, receives longer sentences, and with less chance of parole, for the same crimes as women?
The answer to all these questions, is men - men as men.
And when some men decide that maybe these issues need to be explored, what do you do?
You rub all this in our faces. Wanting to do something about this is men being "manly masculine men," interested in "barbecue grilling." Gross caricatures.
Men's Studies addresses none of this. Men's Studies teaches men that women have all the problems, because there aren't enough women CEOs.
WE are trying to not GET KILLED.
And you mock us for that, then ask us to consider YOUR experiences.
As I say, I'm absolutely sickened. All I can think to say is that you are evil.
"The Dudez are having trubble opening pickle jars!!!"
Yes, hilarious. Reduce every serious problem that men, because they are men, face, to little quips like that.
You see, feminism has no answers to the problems that men face. If it isn't the cause, then it exacerbates the problems and mocks men for them. This is why exactly Male Studies exists.
By the way, had you noticed the banners for Male Studies, you might have noticed the one thing which invalidates your take on it.
They show a little boy, looking at toy soldiers, and asking "is this all I can be?"
Does that sound like a defence of 'traditional' masculinity to you?
Or does it sound like Male Studies might be about change?
Gender roles can indeed be oppressive. But quite clearly, feminism holds no answers for men at all. It titillates at the discrimination that men face as men. No, that's not "The Dudez Carrying Books!!!" It's everything I listed above.
Your response is disgusting. You are a terrible human being.
5:51 pm
@Snark:
EXCELLENT!
5:52 pm
Should men studies ever take off, be assured that feminists will just use it as another example of female oppression.
The fact is, feminism has been a divisive concept since day one, and several decades later, their minions are sheep. Only the men on the outside have ever been free enough to see truth, as domesticated ones are in way too deep.
Like most ideologies that lack an overwhelming morality, they will die out when truth comes to light.
5:54 pm
Snark, do you actually read this blog? Haven't you noticed that Amanda has written extensively about the problems of prison rape, men not being taken seriously as rape victims, etc.? (like here, for instance) Have you read yesterday's article detailing how women are absolutely NOT "automatically believed"?
And, the reason most suicides are male is because they are more likely to kill themselves with firearms. Women actually attempt suicide twice as often as men.
5:58 pm
leftside you fail to miss the purpose of suicides
most men do it as an attempt to escape, so they take more drastic measures, more women are in it for the attention i know it sounds harsh but according to all my years dealing with this shit (in and outside of hospitals) it seems to be true
even if the reasoning is not true, if men are more successfully execute a suicide, they need to be where the attention is aimed
6:01 pm
LeftSidePositive,
Making female victimhood, or perhaps just your female victimhood, the sum total of your worldview must be extremely debilitating.
You put forward the ludicrous idea that the fear of rape might "severely affect one’s daily life". That is simply not true of normal women, leading ordinary lives and who are of stable mind. Some people do live in perpetual fear of all kinds of things and this can have stark effects on their quality of life. However, these people are rare and these things are not likely to happen. It is foolish to class them as issues that affect women in general.
Women are simply not the victims you claim them to be and intelligent women know it. Feminist women, on the other hand, seem only to be interested in a sex-war without end and will throw every ridiculous and unsupportable claim they can think of into the mix in the hope of garnering sympathy and privilege.
Your arguments, like the entirety of Feminist mantra, are tired, inaccurate and above all, intellectually unsound.
For your own good, I would direct you to develop an understanding of the difference between equality of opportunity versus equality of outcome. You also, it would seem, need to break open a text book and learn why it is that certain jobs pay more than others. You might then begin to develop an understanding of how an individuals performance in those jobs affects the wages earned and the seniority achieved. Perhaps, eventually, you might then grasp why the wage gap does not exist outside of a Feminist's mind.
It is YOUR view of the world that is prejudiced and ingrained. I do not see women as victims, YOU do. It is of no genuine benefit to anybody, least of all women, to proclaim eternal female victimhood based on no foundation other than a feverish and hateful imagination.
I would pity you for your unfortunate worldview, but I think you already pity yourself to an extreme degree. I put it to you that the misguided Feminist views you have expressed here are a blight on society and amount to an exercise in both misandry and fundamental attribution error.
6:05 pm
If women attempt suicide twice as often as men, then they're either really really bad at it, or it's a cry for attention most of the time.
The FACT is that men COMMIT suicide four times more than women.
Oh, so Amanda, who openly mocks men organising for the very serious problems which they face, totally cares about "The Dudez" after all, then! (So why does she reduce these problems to "opening pickle jars"?)
I guess there's no need for Male Studies, guys - Amanda will sort out all our problems!
Don't worry about those prison rapes, guys - Amanda's got our back!
Yes, some angsty feminist with a huge chip on her shoulder about The Dudez, with all the altruism of Ayn Rand, is here for us! There's no need for Male Studies - it may as well be mocked into oblivion.
Thank God. I can sleep at night knowing Amanda is looking out for me (when she's not belittling me).
You people are so full of yourselves. The true sign of privilege is that one cries endlessly about all the innovative ways she is being victimised.
Men are asking for the most basic rights which women already lay claim to - not endlessly creating new categories of victimhood.
But it's all about YOU, isn't it? Any attempt by MEN to draw attention to problems like prison rape is shot down with ... and I quote:
"Prof. Guy Chauvin, Bromance Languages"
Oh, haha!
Right, because men can't organise against these kind of things - only Amanda and other feminists may speak on our behalf (or sometimes titillate at our suffering).
Just answer me this: do you honestly think that feminism offers ANYTHING to men?
Anything of benefit, whatsoever?
6:13 pm
'The Sexist'.
Appropriate blog title.
But of course, the very sexist pig who writes it believes that discrimination is a one-way street, and any attempt by men to organise against the discrimination that they (specifically as men!) face is all a great big joke.
6:13 pm
@ Snark
I appreciate your comment on the banner. John Dias and I worked on that together. And you are right, it is about change.
But that change will never come until these hate mongers are outed. All of them.
6:18 pm
@LeftSidePositive
An independent study performed for the department of labour discovered that *shock*
a woman doing the same hours and work as a man made the same amount of money.
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2010/03/08/department-of-labor-gender-wage-gap-a-myth/
I will trust my independent source for a non-political entity over your biased source any day. I'm sorry, but getting your statistics from an organization that survives only by releasing a certain statistic is a bad idea. If there was no wage gap, why would we continue to support women's organizations with millions to research it? So, THEY FIND THAT A WAGE GAP EXISTS! Imagine that.
As for the suicide thing. Did you even read the article? It specifically says that attempted suicide is really a cry for attention from the mentally disturbed. That article is a huge beacon saying: MEN NEED HELP, THEY THINK THE ONLY SOLUTION TO LIFE IS TO KILL THEMSELVES.
6:20 pm
Damn, Paul - it's about change?
The recognition that the traditional male gender role might actually HARM men?
Oh, shoot! I guess that means all Amanda's HI-LAR-I-OUS quips about "Prof Guy Chauvin" and suchlike are void?
But wait! How could we POSSIBLY believe that a traditional gender role might be harmful, without being feminists ourselves? ONLY feminists hold that view, don't you know - the world is very black and white when it comes down to it.
Could it be that ... men have wanted to embrace the freedom from their traditional roles ... but have ONLY found hatred, sarcasm, hostility and indifference from those ostensibly offering this?!!
COULD this be??
Could it be that women have actually systematically forced men BACK INTO those old roles as beasts of burden, for their own benefit? (Think the "pickle jars", Amanda - but think BIGGER!)
And could it be that feminists have been pushing through punitive, anti-male legislation all this time??
Wow. I think we just had a breakthrough here, gentlemen and ladies.
6:22 pm
snark please tell me you have a blog lol
6:24 pm
I was a little afraid of being flooded by freaks from this place, but what the hell. Here you go.
6:37 pm
LSP, note that each one of your references included at most two of the three largest factors in lower total annual pay for women--namely, job choice (not the same as choice of major--a math major working in finance will certainly make more a year out of college than one working as a teacher, for instance), hours worked, and level of experience. This is because, depending on exactly how the controls are done (note the consad report earlier referenced by Zeta) looking at all three factors together accounts for between 74.4% and 130.0% of the gender wage gap. The report, incidentally, throws out the higher figures (calculated on the basis of the effects of these and other factors on men's pay, the lower figures being the result of looking at the effects of these factors on women's pay) for no reason other than that it considers the possibility that these factors might account for more than 100% of the gender wage gap implausible--after all, that would indicate that there was really a gap, after correcting for these factors, in the opposite direction.
The report does not even begin to consider the question of why some of the factors examined might truly have differing effects on men and women (a question that one might reasonably ask). For instance, it is known that men work longer hours on average than women, particularly when part-time and under-employed workers are included in the average. It is therefore entirely sensible that some men might produce more value (per hour) than a woman with an equal number of years of experience but fewer total hours worked. But this greater production of value ought, reasonably, to be correlated with greater pay. In this light it seems clear that years of experience, or proxies for this measure (such as age), might have differing effects on pay for the two sexes for entirely non-sexist reasons--namely, because they reflect differences in resulting rates of production.
Investigating these sorts of questions has been available as a possibility for the AAUW, and other established feminist organizations, for decades. Their continued failure to do so can be attributed to little other than the fact that doing so goes against their political agenda--advancing what they perceive to be the interests of women, with little or no regard for the interests of men (or indeed, higher ideals such as honesty, justice, and fairness). If male studies, in distancing itself from the existing rhetoric of feminism, can more objectively examine these issues, then it deserves to be applauded. The extraordinarily low level of engagement indicated by this piece only serves to punctuate the correctness of the decision by the organizer's of Male Studies to forge their own path in examining society.
6:49 pm
@Zeta
Snark has a blog - and it is AWESOME!
7:11 pm
Thanks for the link to the AAUW paper which says:
"Female students cannot simply choose a major that will allow them to avoid the pay gap.”
Yet, just a few pages later says: "The “within occupation”
pay gap varies considerably, ranging from parity
among engineers (105 percent)" (i.e., female engineers earn 105% what men earn) and "The one major where women earn more than men earn—history." Pick one, they can't all be true. Liars.
Note that in the Executive Summary, the AAUW says that a 5% difference is an unexplained gap that is "evidence of discrimination, which remains a serious problem for women in the work force", yet in the quote above regarding earnings of female engineers characterizes a 5% as "parity". Pathetic. Truly pathetic. But thanks again for the link, and the laughs.
BTW- Warren Farrell, author of Why Men Earn More: The Startling Truth Behind the Pay Gap — and What Women Can Do About It, addressed the mystifying difference quite some time ago. One reason might be 1) income is not linear around 40 hours/week. Individuals who work a little more than 40 hours make substantially more (more than merely the difference in the extra time x pay rate) than individuals who work a little less than 40 hours. 2) Men are much, much more likely to work longer hours, and hence earn more money, even at "the same" job, even when normalized for hours worked. Duh.
Also noticed in the Executive Summary that the AAUW wanted to . . . wait for it . . . include the $0.00 wages of non-working women in the survey. Clowns. And liars. If the women of AAUW are representative, it's no wonder that female university graduates earn less.
7:18 pm
Followed this link from the Spearhead, hoping that I could get some femmeroid target practice. Not just for fun, but to hone my debating skills.
Paul, Snark, and assorted others...you beat me to it, and did a far better job than I could of.
Catch you at the next party.
Hopefully I'll arrive earlier.
7:20 pm
These embittered men have been sent to you by a post at The Spearhead (http://www.the-spearhead.com/), a blog where men who hate women for various reasons get together to talk about how dreadful they are.
For example, one of their members posted an open letter to women that goes like this:
Dear Woman,
As an empathic and fair-minded man who truly wants what’s best for you, I have a bit of advice. Call every man you’ve ever interacted with in your life, and say “Thank you for your kindness, your generosity, and your protection. How may I help you in return?” In fact, you’d better start tomorrow. Because otherwise, the future is going to look very grim for you.
Why, you ask? Because you are the weaker sex. You are drastically inferior to men in every physical and mental capacity when it comes to survival. Any rights or privileges that you may have in our society are granted by men. The only reason why you can vote or own property is because men let you. The only reason why you’re allowed to hold a job outside the home, or are even taught to read, is because men have granted you this privilege.
You can safely walk down the street because men protect you. You can harass and abuse men without fear because men’s protective instincts are strong. You are not presently locked in a cell and treated like a Korean woman during WW2 because men protect you, and would rescue you if that were to happen.
After the last 50 years of seeing feminism gleefully degenerate society and discriminate against men, there is a small but growing percentage of men who believe our kindness, generosity, and protectiveness are in error. And if you knew what was good for you, you would get down on your knees and fervently pray this percentage stays small. Yet, like a bratty child screaming “I HATE YOU!” at your parents, you will probably not listen.
You will live your life as if “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.” You will mock and deride men, and scream Grrrl Power! You will demand larger paychecks for delivering less productivity than men. You will manipulate nice guys and spread your legs for thugs. You will aid, or stand by silently, as feminists label all men as potential rapists. You will prevent male children from succeeding in school. You will divorce loving husbands and fathers because you want their money. You will make false rape allegations, or defend women who do. You will cheerlead an increasingly totalitarian government.
If you choose to do these things, know this. I will never steal from you, abuse you, or rape you. But I will no longer support or protect you. And there are more men like me every day.
Baphomet
(http://www.the-spearhead.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=429)
They are clearly too angry and too filled with hate to be taken seriously. I'd ignore them because the battle is too big; they are already lost to a very, very dark place.
7:31 pm
Dag I didn't know there was a competing Richard. This might lead to some confusion, but aw well.
http://www.malestudies.org/faq2.htm
Again, reading through their literature, it seems like we're making a mountain out of a mole hill. It looks more like a small group of academics making a play within education institutions for their notoriety, rather than some attempt to establish some manlier version of men's studies.
It reminds me of how for awhile at my campus there was a group called AU Students for Trade Justice and a group called AU Fair Trade Student Association.
Also, I do like me some bell hooks.
7:49 pm
How the fuck did the comment section become an unironic reflection of the title of this post?
7:51 pm
You're right, Brad. What fucking nerve these people have to speak up without towing the feminist party line.
In a public comment section, nonetheless.
9:33 pm
"She doesn’t have the audacity to attempt to blog about some foreign issue that she can’t really speak to, which is highly commendable."
But she can speak to the issues of men.
10:22 pm
Mansplainers, oh my!!!
Look, ladies--the fact that the jobs you go into pay less is JUST FINE WITH US...because we're men! There's nothing wrong with the fact that women are the ones who work fewer hours and work part-time more often...because we're men! There's nothing wrong with the fact that women disproportionately stay home with the kids...because we're men! The fact that you women have to juggle career and family and provide most of the childcare and household chores is in no way a challenge to their "equal opportunity"...because we're men! Women who worry about their personal safety too much are insane...because we're men! We know what your risks are and what is or is not appropriate for you to worry about...because we're men! (But, of course, a woman who dresses the wrong way or walks alone at night or flirts with the wrong guy or drinks alcohol is asking for it, because we're still men! But somehow this doesn't mean women have to modify their behavior.) Women who suffer from major depression are just asking for attention when they try to kill themselves...because we're men!
Now, even the most hardcore feminist women do not (contrary to your beliefs) hate men. I genuinely enjoy the company of a wide variety of men, as long as they treat me with respect and like an equal (that's also, incidentally, my exact same criteria for enjoying the company of a woman). We only have problems with men who act like the ones above (Brad V excepted), not because you're men per se, but because you're hateful derisive douchebags. Not all men are like you (fortunately, I think douchebags like you count for a pretty small minority!), but are you honestly surprised that women don't take kindly to you when you act like every bit of privilege you have is just fucking fine the way it is??
Also, how exactly do these oppressions of men listed above have anything to do with feminism? Is your thesis honestly that men never committed suicide in greater numbers before feminism became a political force? What is your thesis on how more empowered women could somehow be leading men to kill themselves? Furthermore, the suicide rate among men has gone DOWN 15.1% over the last 50 years...if feminism were to blame, wouldn't the rates go UP??
In fact, isn't a "males as males" attitude more likely to lead to men avoiding treatment for depression (or self-medicating with alcohol), or choosing a "manly" method like firearms to kill themselves.
Are you honestly trying to claim that men weren't raped in prison prior to feminism being a political force? What is your thesis on how feminism or women are perpetrating prison rapes? How exactly does demonizing feminism or women help the cause of reducing prison rape in any way?
Snark--what the hell do you mean by this: "Could it be that … men have wanted to embrace the freedom from their traditional roles … but have ONLY found hatred, sarcasm, hostility and indifference from those ostensibly offering this?!!" Dude, your blog is called "Remasculation" and you're trying to claim WE'RE the ones forcing you into traditional gender roles? How on earth does studying "males as males" help break men free from traditional gender roles, when it is focused on "masculinity" as "maleness" and the "enormous relation between...a person's biology and their behavior"?
1:03 am
DT, your reading comprehension skills are pretty poor. The paper did NOT, in fact, cite engineering *by itself* as "parity"--it said the group of three professions--engineering (105), medical professionals (99) and educators (98) were together clustered around "parity," (one just above parity, two others just below it) as contrasted with a "disparity" cluster of service (75) and business (81).
Where did the Executive Summary say that they wanted to include non-employed women in the income data? It seemed that stated figures carefully qualified that they were referring to individuals working full-time. It discusses women who take a break from employment (and why this is disadvantageous for women's earnings and why men would also benefit from more equal flexibility in this regard) but where in the executive summary are you gleaning that they are trying to include $0 wages in their calculations?
2:08 am
Left Side Positive:
From your account: "Just a few weeks ago, I was on the train at Disneyland, making small talk and mentioned that I was there on spring break from medical school. The man I was talking to said, “Oh, you’re going to be a nurse?” NO, I said. MEDICAL SCHOOL. An MD program. To become a DOCTOR. If I were going to be a nurse, I would have fucking said I was in NURSING school."
Really? Just a few weeks ago? I read an account similar to this in a newspaper advice column back in 1993. Did you make that up? Come on now.
Speaking of making things up. I would like to draw attention to your other lie about 15 out of 16 rapists never going to jail. Preposterous! These men may be 'accused' of rape but many times we see women's false rape claims proved false under the scrutiny of a court of law. Here's a personal account for you, one that is not ripped off from Dear Abbey. I myself have witnessed three false rape claims made by women who were trying to absolve themselves of responsibility. You see I worked on a ship that also had a number of females who worked on it who decided to claim that they were raped when they failed to return to the ship on time after a night of partying and binge drinking. In both cases their lies were found out.
Guess what; Now when any woman tells me she was raped, my default stance is to not believe her. I am not the only man who feels this way. More and more men are becoming disgusted with the behavior of women. We are ignoring you. We are turning our backs on you as much as we legally can. So go ahead with your mockery of our attempts to gain fair and equal treatment under the law. You will only reveal your true nature to more men.
2:38 am
Men make up 75% of suicides 85% of the homeless and over 90% of workplaces deaths. They are also the gender used exclusively as cannon fodder.
If you think you have it so hard why not trade places? Have the guys sit at home and play housewife while you get marched off to your death for god and country? Have the guys get in the lifeboats with the kids with you go down with the ship?
Also, I like the way feminists keep bringing up the wage gap which is provably false and leave out the fact that women make up 80% of consumer purchases and are the majority of TV watchers. Wow, you poor babies have it so hard. If this is your idea of oppression them I beg of you, oppress me.
Now thanks to feminism men not only have to deal with all the same oppressive gender roles but institutionalized misandry and discrimination. And men are starting to wake up to it.
to quote Shakespeare: Why, revenge.
The villainy you teach me, I will execute,
and it shall go hard but I will better the instruction.
3:53 am
Oh dear, Feeding the Trolls @ 7.20, you're jumping to conclusions.
I'm one of those "[T]hese embittered men have been sent to you by a post at The Spearhead, a blog where men who hate women for various reasons get together to talk about how dreadful they are."
Except that after 42 years of running around with XX chromosomes and the assorted physical baggage that goes with all that, I'm pretty sure that I'm not, a man.
There are a lot of men who are pissed at women, and rightly so, just as there are a lot of women with the same issues.
It's just that the playing field, especially in the US, is tilted towards the female side of things. VAWA anyone?
3:59 am
apologies for not closing the italics tag.
4:43 am
Sounds like this was recorded in a bar 10 minutes before closing.
6:40 am
@Snark
I was more marveling at how a blog that usually has maybe one or two mansplainers/MRAs in the comments is suddenly invaded by a rash of them and the humor inherent in the juxtaposition of the title and the comments section. But hey, you know, take your own ideas away from a one-liner comment.
8:50 am
Let's start from the beginning - how exactly is Male Studies course going to create inequality and harm feminism? For some reason it seems that the feminists here think that addressing male issues will somehow prevent the addressing of female issues. Either that or the feminists think that men do not have issues which require addressing. Am I on the right track and if not, can I have some clarification to know where you stand?
10:30 am
by_the_sword,
Yes. This happened just a few weeks ago, on the Disneyland Railroad just after the New Orleans Square stop, as we were passing by the construction site for the river refurbishment. But, thanks a lot for your concern! What I don't think you realize is that stuff like this is a VERY common occurrence...but to you, of course, it only could have happened once!
The 15 out of 16 statistic was cited (and linked) from RAINN, and has been well-documented. As for your delusions about false rape, bullshit. Sorry, but we've seen this game before here. The "Oh, I knew women who claimed rape falsely and now I never believe any woman who says she's been raped," is, seriously, the LEAST convincing thing you could say. The last mansplainer who tried to pull that one here revealed that the reason he was so sure the claim was false was because she wasn't ready to go to the police and he tried to FORCE her to do so. So, yeah, bullshit.
Did it ever occur to you that these women may have been drinking AND been raped? Those two things are not mutually exclusive, you know, and women who are taken advantage of while intoxicated have some of the most difficulty getting people to take them seriously and defend their rights. I would expect it much more likely that they came to someone for help, and that someone was all too happy to focus on the alcohol than to address their situation.
10:38 am
@ Neutral Observer
The feeling that i get from talking with the folks from the gender studies department at my alma mater is that what Male Studies wants to cover is already explored in Men's Studies. The professors involved in this seem to be making a move for notoriety in their field, and to be able to leave trans-men out of the discussion of maleness.
If i could name one quote that seems to have everyone up in arms in would be this one, describing feminism as, "a well-meaning, highly successful, very colorful denigration of maleness as a force, as a phenomenon." Hope that helps.
10:39 am
Neutral Observer, thanks for your question. This isn't about men's issues being studied, because after all, "Men's Studies" is an established and respected discipline. The issue here is that the presentation appears to indicate that it is seeking academic cover for some pretty androcentric and misogynistic attitudes. This whole "male as male" thing is, in many cases, a means to claim that men's attitudes toward women are just because the "are" that way innately, and seeks biological/historical excuses for "masculinity" and "privilege" being inherently linked to "maleness," thus fostering a sense of entitlement. Note the comments above, and their absolute refusal to consider any point of view besides their own. If someone states the difficulties in a non-priveleged life (in one respect or another), they are very quick to discount those experiences, and assert that they as privileged people just happen to make better choices or are better, they can decide what is and is not important, and none of the experiences of the non-privileged (with which they themselves are actually unfamiliar) could possibly be real or could be worth anyone's time as opposed to issues espoused by the privileged set, and that anyone who highlights elements where they do not have privilege must be by definition an irrational, angry, intentional victim.
1:01 pm
@LeftSidePositive,
Are you insane? Do you actually believe males lead a privileged life? If so, why? I am a male, and when I look around, I don't see any privileged males. None. Anywhere.
Let me give you some examples. I was a seaman before, and I worked with many men from the Philippines. Several of them worked upwards of 16 months straight on a ship, just to secure a position as crewmember. Imagine working 16 months straight, seven days a week, 12 hrs per day. These men would do this because they had wives and children back in the Philippines that needed support. Failure to live up to these obligations would result in marital breakdown, perhaps even separation.
I've seen one Philippino go crazy and jump off the ship and swim to shore because he couldn't take the isolation anymore. Another Philippino I saw had his pelvis crushed by a hatch cover he was trying to swerve away from. It is common knowledge that these men are working so that they may feed their families. We also know that men without jobs and money live lives of sexual scarcity, as women use sex as a way of rewarding and punishing male behavior.
And you call this privilege?
Women initiate 70% of all divorces, and out of all those divorces, a mere 6% are for reasons involving abuse. In other words, 94% of all divorces initiated by women are because the women has become 'bored'. She wants to 'find herself'. She feels the need to become 'empowered' and 'self-actualized'. Women are the first to want into a marriage and the first to want out. Men are reluctant to divorce because of what it will do to the children. Statistics demonstrate over and over again that children from divorced parents fare much worse than children from intact families.
Yet feminists ignore these statistics.
The wage gap is a myth. There isn't one. Statistics prove resoundingly that single, childless women make just as much money as single childless men. When marriage becomes a factor, married women make less than single or married men. Why is this?
Well, why do you think? Is a married woman with a newborn baby going to be available to work full time? Who's fault is it that she is no longer making the kind of money she was making before she had a baby? Society's? Men's? Who made the choice to have a baby? What should we do, slow business down to a woman's biological cycles? Well, we can do that. There is a catch, however. In a free, capitalistic society, the competition will see this as weakness and crush you. Those who do not employ pregnant women will rise to the top. The only purpose of business, is er.....profit.
Now, I will agree with you. Men at the very top of the pyramid do lead lives of privilege. But let's now lower our gaze to about 90% of all men, shall we? Do you see privilege? I don't. I see men who have walked out of family court looking as though they've just been raped. Their ex-wives have become unrecognizable to them. She has stolen the children and is holding them as ransom. Child support will be paid and if not men in uniform with guns will find him and send him to prison.
This is privilege?
Male Studies seeks to help men learn the many options open to them. It must necessarily distance itself from Men's Studies, because Men's Studies is under the control of Women's and Gender Studies. Men's Studies is taught in almost all classrooms, by women, and these women are radical feminists. How is that fair? Male Studies will be different in that it will not be a gynocentric and homo-normative field of studies. The notion that everything is a social construct needs to be challenged. After all, allegations of social construction cannot be proven. As Richard Dawkins says when he questions why women do no enter science, women respond by saying, "Women just know..." That isn't good enough for academia. It is not enough to 'just know'. True academic research must have tests, hypothesese, etc. "Women just know" is not good enough, and we do need to do more to understand Males.
1:06 pm
In most institutions, men's studies are just extensions of women's studies programs. Most of the material is feminist in nature, and is therefore highly biased, sexist and politically correct in nature. The male studies conference simply removed any feminist bias from the discussion.
That seems to be the real objection here. Male studies removes any aspect of feminism from the discussion, and allows for discussions about males and masculinity without the politically correct spin. It seems petulant to complain about men wanting to define, discuss, and address the problems that effect them on their own terms rather than relying on the methods feminists deem best. It also seems rather biased to claim or imply that males have no problems because they are all basking in privilege (except for gay and trans men).
2:46 pm
So male studies is analyzing how traditional roles harm men; but feminists don't like that because of the whole 'harms men' part which they disagree with. Yet feminists want to deconstruct traditional gender roles.
But wait a sec... If feminists think that men are privileged by traditional gender roles and male's studies is examining how they're not... which group is really manufacturing support for men's traditional roles?
After all, if male studies' reveals just how bad traditional roles were for men, wouldn't that be a powerful argument for men to reject traditional gender roles? A powerful argument that would end up supporting feminism's agenda of deconstructing traditional gender roles?
Ultimately it looks like feminism wants men to deconstruct their gender roles without giving them any incentive to do so. In fact feminists seem to imply this will be a net negative to men, but that they should do it for the same reasons that men on the Titanic drowned. Chivalry. Woman as eternal victim in need of rescuing. Hop to it men, take one for the team because you're powerful and women are weak.
It's looking like feminists really aren't interested in changing traditional gender roles after all. As a anarchistic-liberal woman I'm afraid I just can't get behind such an archaic, conservative position as feminism. You're welcome to your corsets and hoop skirts femservative ladies, but, yeah, no thanks. I'd rather walk unencumbered by victimology's mental footbinding.
I've seen what it does to women. Ugh.
2:53 pm
Self quote to clarify:
"Ultimately it looks like feminism wants men to deconstruct their gender roles without giving them any incentive to do so. In fact feminists seem to imply this will be a net negative to men, but that they should do it for the same reasons that men on the Titanic drowned. Chivalry."
Feminists are trying to convince men to deconstruct their traditional gender role by appealing to it(chivalry, hero). And they're trying to deconstruct women's traditional gender role by playing it(damsel, victim).
Er... how does that work?
2:54 pm
Wait wait wait. Didn't you guys hear that someone mistakenly assumed she was going to nursing school when in actuality she's going to be a doctor? And you continue to bring up all these things that men routinely go through, since their very lives are considered expendable by society? How dare you!
LSP, you're a very brave and courageous person and a survivor and just terrific and thanks for sharing your harrowing, no, blood-curdling tale that made me cry and I hope you recover soon. When will women be free from every possible inconvenience and minor discomfort?
Any "men's studies" conducted under feminist auspices is blatant fraud. Feminists have proven quite adequately over the past thirty years where they stand on equal rights: women to have equal or better rights, men to have equal or lesser rights. Having feminists establish and oversee male studies is like having the Klu Klux Klan in charge of African American studies.
2:56 pm
@LeftSidePositive,
So, according to you, men are the privileged group and the fact that they attempt to push through initiatives, such as this one, proves their sense of entitlement to the aforementioned privilege (correct me if I am wrong, that's what I understood from your post).
From a neutral perspective though, could it be possible that the tables have turned (or at least shifted slightly) and that the group that was previously thought to be privileged is no longer privileged, whereas the group that was previously thought to be underprivileged is now privileged (or equal)? Because this is what I understand the MRAs are trying to imply.
Could it be possible (I am not suggesting it is, just playing the devil's advocate if you want) that women have now became the privileged group and behave according to the pattern you described (belittling the problems of the non-privileged group)?
Other than that, since we agree that the genders are equal in every respect, if the male studies program does not provide any material offensive to any sex or group of people, would it get the feminists' support?
3:03 pm
@feeding the trolls:
"I’d ignore them because the battle is too big; they are already lost to a very, very dark place."
You know what? As a woman I find feminist's endless focus on my victimhood to be more disturbing and oppressive then the stuff at spearhead. First off, feminists tend to minimize the ways I feel I really have been victimized that don't align with their theories to over focus on ways that I don't perceive having been victimized yet do align with their theories. I feel like I'm being pimped out by an ideology that feels no compunction in using it's 'pimp hand*' should I ever get out of line. Second off, embracing an ideology of victimhood entails embracing an 'external locus of control' over my own life. Which, in the end, does more to render me passive and useless then any 'patriarchal' training. In fact I think feminism may just be 'patriarchal training' in new--but oh so fashionable--clothes.
*Been called... letsee... slut, faghag, cunt, bimbo, 'shouldn't you be on your knees worshiping cock, bitch' by feminists. For people who are trying to deconstruct 'patriarchy' they sure love using it's tools when it suits them.
3:34 pm
@LeftSidePositive:
Re:
"Did it ever occur to you that these women may have been drinking AND been raped? Those two things are not mutually exclusive, you know, and women who are taken advantage of while intoxicated have some of the most difficulty getting people to take them seriously and defend their rights. I would expect it much more likely that they came to someone for help, and that someone was all too happy to focus on the alcohol than to address their situation."
Exactly. And why do you think that is?
Rape is wrong and evil. It's equally wrong and evil to have consensual sex with a man after voluntarily putting yourself under the influence and then claim you were raped. Pressing charges in such a situation is actually more evil than being raped.
Feminists love to tell men to "grow a pair" when men rightfully claim they are oppressed (women haven't been oppressed for... wait, when was that again?). I want to tell young women to "grow a brain". Don't go out drinking, dressed provocatively, without a bodyguard. You're not that innocent. You know what kind of urges you have and that you will have less control of them when intoxicated.
Please... don't go outside alone after dark. You cannot take back the night by marching with signs. What is that supposed to do? It hasn't worked and it never will. In the real world, everyone except feminists and people who can't think for themselves (there is a huge overlap here) laughs at you. Men who don't rape (most men) won't rape just because they spy a stray, unprotected female. Men who rape are excited to find one. So "grow a brain" and stop promoting this "Take Back the Night" nonsense. Common sense isn't very common anymore.
I'm an older woman and I can't believe what is happening to western society! Can you not see that, thanks to feminism, virtually everything is getting worse for EVERYONE except PUAs and people who do not want to be burdened with children!?
3:35 pm
typhonblue drops a 'locus of control' reference; i swoon with approval.
3:37 pm
@barsin:
"When will women be free from every possible inconvenience and minor discomfort?"
You don't understand. When you're taught to view yourself as a victim, not only is every minor inconvenience proof of a vast conspiracy against yourself but you also must abdicate your ability to deal with it. Instead of figuring out a way to deal with it and move on, you must paint it large, you must cry and weep, you must analyze it for greater meaning. It becomes your life so you write articles, blog on it, mentioning it to everyone. And thus you convince yourself you are helpless in the face of the powerful forces that control your very mind and identity.
You are a victim and at every turn you must prove this so. You must prove your right to your identity. The more minor the transgression against you, the greater your victimhood, because you are proving to everyone around you that even a papercut lays you low, a misdirected word wounds you mortally. You have no ability to fend for yourself in any sense! And thus you are awarded title of Ultimate Victim.
Of course by embracing the identity of a victim, you can never assume the identity of a hero.
What does a hero do when confronted with an obstacle? She gets around it. She doesn't dwell on it; she doesn't use it to confirm her identity as a damsel in distress ('oh, I simply can't get over this knee high fence, I must have someone, somewhere to lift me *swoon*). She jumps the damn thing and moves on.
Guy asked me once... 'so what do you do'
I said 'I'm taking a science undergrad.'
Guy says 'oh, you're going to be a teacher.'
What did I do? I said, 'no. I'm going to be a scientist.' Never thought about it again till this moment but I guess I can claim just as much victimhood as this little lady of perpetual victimhood.
Except I don't. I know what lies down that path.
4:00 pm
Self Quotage FTW:
"The more minor the transgression against you, the greater your victimhood, because you are proving to everyone around you that even a papercut lays you low, a misdirected word wounds you mortally."
And then, if you embrace Her Lady of Perpetual Victimhood, you get all those chivalrous white knighters and male feminists hell bent on dry-humping you to their own sleazy satisfaction.
"You're soooo oppressed and I'm such a bad, bad boy. *pant* Tell me again how bad I am! *fapfapfap*"
*shudder* DO NOT WANT.
4:21 pm
These guys (and some ladies) are so frothed up with rage that they forgot that part in the article that said "The Internet is not a thousand little knives stabbing you in the face. The Internet is some people talking. In conclusion, calm down."
(Or, more likely, they came in to prove some point or other without bothering to read the article at all.)
Hey Spearhead dudes: all women are not the particular woman who hurt you that one time. You don't have to hate all of us. One of you just wrote a ragey article about how he's through with all women forever. Sounds lonely.
This article is about how even feminists have to work hard to listen to other people's viewpoints. They're pointing out that many people, including feminists, have certain privileges inherent in being white, or male, or straight, or able-bodied. This privilege doesn't always mean they live a "privileged" life in all ways, just that they don't have to think about certain things very hard.
These feminists want to try to listen to others who say "I have a problem you're not understanding." You're running in saying "I HAVE A PROBLEM YOU'RE NOT UNDERSTANDING AND YOU MUST LISTEN TO IT!" without 1. giving women the same courtesy or 2. understanding that that's what they're saying they'd like to try to do.
But, see, they want you to listen to them too. If you don't, it's not that they won't listen to you at all, it's that you look like a bit of a dick in the process.
FWIW I wholeheartedly support equality between sexes, including eliminating double standards in rape reporting for men, advertising that belittles men, and courts that favor women over men without justification when it comes to children.
That equality is what it means to be feminist for just about every feminist I know. But you're not listening--I conjecture that you're hearing us speak with that one particular woman's voice, so you can't hear through your hate.
Talk to some actual feminists to see if we really believe what you presume we believe. You might be surprised.
5:03 pm
Unfortunately with the divorce rate over 50 percent in this country Ive witnessed many male friends who have been figuratively srewed by the family court system. Access to their children is severely restricted in the majority of cases. Feminists seem disinterested in changing this or even questioning these archaic ways so if men's studies programs work at questioning this much like womens studies did for the pay gap I think its a good thing. If my tax dollars are supporting womens studies programs which are ubiquitous at Universities I have no problem at all doing the same for a Mens study program.
5:03 pm
Wow. the hatred here is...wow. Not that I'm surprised.
5:34 pm
it's true, the feminists here ARE shockingly hateful..
5:42 pm
I like how Ken failed to listen.
5:58 pm
@holy christ,
Did you come here to address any concerns that men are facing, or did you come here to simply shame them? WTF?
"Hey Spearhead dudes: all women are not the particular woman who hurt you that one time."
Translation: "Not all women are like that".
Ok cupcake, if you want to be flippant, let's be flippant. Go make me a sandwich.
Now, if you wish to have a serious discussion, reply back with something serious. However, if you reply back with condescension and shaming language, don't be surprised if no one takes you seriously. I get the feeling you don't want that anyway.
What would you think were I to show up at feministing.com and chimed in with, "Like wow, bitches. Wow. You bitches need to take a chill pill. For real, yo."
Isn't that what you basically posted?
"They’re pointing out that many people, including feminists, have certain privileges inherent in being white, or male, or straight, or able-bodied. This privilege doesn’t always mean they live a “privileged” life in all ways, just that they don’t have to think about certain things very hard."
Are you really this fucking stupid? Did I not already debunk the 'privileged' myth? What you are basically saying is that if you are breathing, you are alive and you have a pulse, consider yourself 'privileged'. Please lady, withdraw from your Womyn's Studies classes and get a real job. I refuse to be shamed into silence because I am alive, and ipso facto, privileged. This is another prime example of "Women just know".
"These feminists want to try to listen to others who say “I have a problem you’re not understanding.” You’re running in saying “I HAVE A PROBLEM YOU’RE NOT UNDERSTANDING AND YOU MUST LISTEN TO IT!” without 1. giving women the same courtesy or 2. understanding that that’s what they’re saying they’d like to try to do."
You've had forty years and you blew it. So yes, I HAVE A PROBLEM AND YOU'RE NOT UNDERSTANDING AND YOU MUST LISTEN TO IT. I CAN SHOUT LOUDER THAN YOU CAN AND MALE STUDIES IS HERE TO STAY AND YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE LEARN TO DEAL WITH IT.
You will get courtesy in your own Womyn's Studies departments. We demand the same in Male Studies. It's ours. Not yours. Ours.
"But, see, they want you to listen to them too. If you don’t, it’s not that they won’t listen to you at all, it’s that you look like a bit of a dick in the process."
Did it not occur to you that is precisely the intention? Do you really believe Male Studies was established to win the approval of women? You are an idiot. I sure hope you can do something useful, like cook. Because if you can't, I can only imagine you'd make a lousy wife. What are you good at, anyway? Why don't you post a picture of your tits?
"But you’re not listening–I conjecture that you’re hearing us speak with that one particular woman’s voice, so you can’t hear through your hate."
Who said we are here to listen to you? Do you really believe Male Studies was established so that we may listen to the voices of women? Good Lord, your imbecility is breathtaking. Do you wear a drool-cup?
"Talk to some actual feminists to see if we really believe what you presume we believe. You might be surprised."
No you talk to some feminists. You will have to when a new order is established, and all privileges you enjoy fall apart. Never in the history of the world have women been so molly-coddled and protected. Well, those days are about to end, lady. You're going to have to take a bite out of a big ol' shit sandwich. No more chivalry, no more state-enforced child support payments. No more using children as ransom. No more vagimony. No more presumption of innocence in domestic violence. No more divorce theft. No more doors being held open. No more women and children first. No more selective service restricted to males only. No more special treatment.
You had your 40 years and you blew it. You could not prove you are equal to men. Look around you, what do you see? Everything you see has been designed and built, by men. After forty years of feminism you have not done shit. You are not even good cooks. Chefs are men. Your computer was built by a man. Your plumbing, heating and electricity? Men. The roof over your head? Men.
Unless you have a nice set of tits, or you can cook, bugger off. From now on you'll be treated as the useless parasite you are.
6:11 pm
@Biff Longcock,
I see your point, but I don't think that 40 years is enough for any group to prove itself on the world arena. I think more time is needed for any group to be able to show its talents before judgments like that can be made.
Other than that I think you are right in saying that belittling of male problems and double standards are wrong. I think the whole core of the flamewar going on here is basically two sides arguing whether that belittling and double standards occur. The MRAs and the feminists view the matter from their own perspective (i.e. they both think they are the oppressed group who needs care and thus get angry with any measures that disregard them as a group), however neither group is willing to look at the other side's point of view.
6:25 pm
I actually said that belittling male problems and double standards are wrong. I dint know any feminist who disagrees.
Also, I built my computer.
6:26 pm
s/dint/don't
6:28 pm
Man... my problems with feminism just don't ever get addressed! C'mon! Do I have to show my tits?
I think I need to petition the 'male studies' people to get a sub-committee going. Something like 'Playing Victim: Liberal Female Objections to Feminist Traditionalism.'
6:31 pm
@ holy shit
"I actually said that belittling male problems and double standards are wrong. I don't know any feminist who disagrees."
Um... We're posting on an article by a feminist who is belittling male problems and double standards. So, yeah, you _do_ know a feminist who agrees with that. Apparently two at that.
6:41 pm
This article is not about that at all. It's saying that everyone needs to listen to each other, and that both sides find it difficult to take small complaints seriously. These women are saying they know they should, because they find it annoying when man don't do the same. They're also self-congratulatory (and somewhat smug) for being aware of this particular problem, but quite rightly asking men to examine it too.
They're saying we all need to listen to each other. The comments here bear that out.
6:42 pm
Please excuse typos. If it helps, my tits and cooking are also shit.
6:55 pm
@ holy christ
"They’re saying we all need to listen to each other. The comments here bear that out."
Wow. That's an interesting reading. Here's mine. They're mocking and dismissing an attempt by men to talk about their own problems absent the influence of feminism.
Note that these guys aren't denying feminists the right to talk about their problems, they're merely creating a space for men to talk about their issues _outside of feminism_.
Thing is... what I'm getting from all this is that feminism really believes women are the ultimate victims of everything. I get that very strongly from the posted article where the two feminists are engaging in a one-up-manship in mocking anything that men might consider themselves to be victims of. With the obvious implication that only women are victims of serious issues.
From that mocking exchange I can see why 'male studies' wants to get the hell away from 'men's studies' and feminism as both cast men and women in the traditional roles of active agent/passive victim. And since 'male studies' wants to examine issues of male disenfranchisement/victimhood, they must work outside the traditional gender hegemony of 'man=active agent/woman=passive victim' which means they must work outside of feminism itself.
I'm actually pretty excited! A new perspective on gender that isn't millennia old!
7:01 pm
yeah, it really feels just the last few months that something big & new is on its way with all this. i think we are going to be seeing some interesting times..
7:11 pm
in defence of HC, this particular article doesn't seem quite as misandric as the rest on this site, i do think in this case she has a point.
by the way biff, i really liked your earlier post [#60], it's a great piece of writing that just about says it all, so thanks for posting :)
7:34 pm
Feminism, 50 years later: a deluge of false accusations and privilege-seeking, ghettos and prisons packed with the products of single-mother households, deteriorating civil liberties, one of the highest divorce rates in history, and a culture that is awash in contempt for men.
Worked out great, didn't it?
7:53 pm
@typhonblue
It seems a clear enough reading to me, but given the comments here and your interpretation, I think it would be useful for the author/s to clarify exactly what they're getting at. After all, the onus of clear communication is on the person giving the message, and they're obviously not clear enough given such drastically different interpretations.
"they’re merely creating a space for men to talk about their issues _outside of feminism_."
I thought men's problems all came from feminism ;)
aw, just kidding.
9:46 pm
To Holy Christ,
How refreshing to hear a voice that is so full of sincerity and the joke about the part of your anatomy and your cooking skills is priceless. You are using the same words to comment on the subject but your approach is different, it is thoughtful and respectful even if some have taken the liberty to disrespect you.
11:56 pm
Sterilizing everyone with an IQ below say 120 solves most problems and allows Mankind to finally begin to solve the rest.
If liberalism is an intellectual belief, I didn't see how a liberalism can be against this...
12:08 am
@ holy christ
"Hey Spearhead dudes: all women are not the particular woman who hurt you that one time. You don’t have to hate all of us. One of you just wrote a ragey article about how he’s through with all women forever. Sounds lonely."
Switch the genders and you'll basically have what I want to tell a lot of feminists.
"Hey, I'm not the guy who yelled obscene things at you on the sidewalk, or grabbed your ass in the mall. I'm not the guy that raped you. Please quit treating me as if I was."
Oh and to whoever it was that claimed false rape reports don't happen- Well, this is anecdotal but I, for one, had the threat of a rape accusation used to bully me into doing whatever the girl wanted. I was twelve, she was also bigger than I was.
8:52 am
The contempt between men and women is palpable reading these forums -- from the blog author down through many of the commentators. I question how one can have a relationship with someone from the opposite sex (am I being presumptuous thinking most are straight?) when there appears to be so much virulent sentiment between men and women. Being gay, one of the best parts of a homosexual relationship is that we love and embrace our own gender. Id even go as far to say we worship our bodies and our maleness. I suppose the same sentiment appplies to lesbian relationships as well. So to the guy who said hes through with women forever -- have you thought about a same sex relationship ? You may be surprised how emotionally and physically satisfying they are.
12:07 pm
@ 8Ball,
See this is the problem - neither side is willing to look at the other's point of view, with feminists being a tad more venomous than the MRAs. Right now I only see two possibilities - either we look for some methods of cooperation (whether you want it or not, the pendulum has to swing back towards the MRAs, to what degree is going to have to be decided) or we have an all-out gender war. I cannot foresee this state of things carrying on a lot longer.
12:18 pm
Erik,
Thank you, but the answer for most guys isn't same sex physical relationships. The answer (or at least the short-run fix), as I frequently note on my blog "The Balls Monologues" at http://guyinism.com is giving guys our own right to choose (willing sex partners) through legalization of prostitution.
There's an old saying among payahs: "you don't pay for the girl to cum, you pay for her to leave." We are all indoctrinated with romantic ideals, but, IMO, separation of sex and relationships is the wiser way for guys to go, and we can develop nonsexual relationships with everybody - guys, women, gay, straight, etc.
12:51 pm
"Hey Spearhead dudes: all women are not the particular woman who hurt you that one time."
How insulting to belittle male pain and shame us by implying that what we've experienced is trivial or isolated. Me and my brother grew up with a feminist single mom by choice who constantly reminded us that "men are evil". I grew up in that hate. Hate bounces. Blame your sisterhood. And thats the tip of the iceberg of my pain. You have no idea how bad it can be for men, just because we are men.
12:52 pm
Neutral Observer,
As far as your comment #77 that 40 years isn't enough time, I must disagree. The failure to women to come even close to the accomplish of guys in the internet-related business arena is all the proof you should need. Many of those companies started up on a home PC. Some of the most successful guys in the field aren't even 30 yet.
Another field is the law. Whatever legacy there may be of gender discrimination in big firms that serve large corporate clientele, there is no excuse for womens' spectacular record of relatively-inferior achievement at the small-firm level. Small personal injury and consumer class actions firms, for instance, are very entrepreneurial. Few of these firms are even 25 years old, let alone 40, and they draw their clientele from the general public, which is majority female. Women could start them just easily as guys - but they don't, or can't do so successfully.
Hedge funds, many of which started with a lone guy sitting in a one-room office, didn't even exist to any degree 40 years ago, or even 25 years ago.
The evidence is compelling. If pay disparities were adjusted for accomplishment disparities, it would show that women are substantially overpaid, not underpaid.
1:38 pm
Neutral observer
For men its about institutionalized/lawful discrimination.
-draft
-no fault divorce
-family court
-presumption of guilt in rape and DV cases
-workplace/college quotas
-single mother welfare
-all the government funded womens groups
What legitimate concerns do feminists have?
-debunked wage gap myth
-being offended by sexual comments/staring
-rape, a crime the law considers almost equivalent to murder
-the audacity of other people to debate the humanity of a unborn child
-not getting everyone else to pay for their abortions
-gender roles/cultural stereotypes. Shall I bring in the the thought police?
The only possible way to justify these things as actual issues is to be a die hard socialist. But you know I thought America was the land of the free, with a free market.
Seriously though, can you ladies tell me why you haven't been fighting for you right as equals to be drafted.You know I come awfully close to being a full blown misogynist every time I think about those poor oppressed suffragettes whining that they don't have the vote while 25 million men were getting mowed down by machine guns in the trenches of world war one.
2:19 pm
dirk i hope the male studies curriculum includes frank discussion and understanding of homosexuality. I took a woman's study class in college but was so turned off by the misandry that I actually stopped attending in November (by that time it was too late to withdraw from the course) and subsequently got an "F" in the course but it was worth not having to deal with the male bashing. I think a lot of men and MRA's seem to think that because we are gay, we are feminists by nature -- this is entirely untrue. I am gay, but male first and foremost. In fact it is gay men who are often more embracing of masculinity than most any other group !!
2:33 pm
@Neutral Observer #93
Thats all well and good, but as much as feminists like to talk about "checking priviledge" I dont see them doing much of it. (unless it's race priviledge or economic privilege. "Female privilege" doesn't even register.) There's no willingness to look at the ways men are being screwed from the day we're born. (unless it's with an aim to garner sympathy from men.)
4:52 pm
It'll be nice to have an area of study on the condition of males that is not constantly juxtaposed to that of females and with a constant background of negativity aimed thereat... assuming of course the whole idea is not bludgeoned to death by feminists and cowed college administrators before the first class is held...
5:21 pm
Actually, let me see if I can make my point another way.
Okay, to start off I absolutely agree with women and feminists that when it comes to women's issues, women's experiences, and women's lives, men should (for the most part) shut up and listen.
So- why is it that when the topic is MEN'S issues, MEN'S experiences, and MEN'S lives we (men) are STILL being told to sit down, shut up, and listen?
But I suppose congratulations are in order. Good job Feminists, your goal has been accomplished. You are now no better than the men you rail against.
Way to go.
6:16 pm
While Amanda and Sady were having their grrlz good time, in West Virginia another coal mining accident killed another five or more miners. All of them were men. All of them were white.
So I guess that "whitemaleprivilege" includes the privilege to spend all day several hundred feet underground, carving out hydrocarbon-filled rock, in order that Sady and Amanda can have electric lights over their heads while they spin around in their chairs, giggling about what wimps teh menz are. I guess that whitemailprivilege means the privilege to get burned to death, crushed to death, suffocated to death, or merely crippled for life hundreds of feet underground so that steel can be made, in order to create computer frames so that leftsidepositive can whinge in his Sensitive New Age Guy way while bashing men.
So when is the AAUW going to come out and demand that 50% of all coal miners be women/wimmen/wymmin/womyn/whatever?
Ain't gonnna happen.
When is NOW gonna come out and demand that 50% of prisons be for wimmen/womyn/women/wymmen?
Ain't gonna happen.
When will feminists admit that maybe there's a reason why men who work on jobs that might just get them killed at any time get paid more than officer chairwarmers, waitresses, phonecenter droids?
Ain't gonna happen.
Because feminism is not, and never has been, about equality. It is, and has been, and will be, about keeping men in their traditional, EXPENDABLE roles while teh wimminz get more privilege. Feminism is all about "more for teh wimmenz and less for teh menz", and this thread shows that very clearly.
No wonder the idea of men getting together without any feminists around to discuss real problems in a real way gets Amanda and Sady and leftsidedingbat's panties all wadded up. If teh menz decide not to be pack mules anymore, decide not to die in coal mines anymore, then the parasites are gonna be up the creek.
Well, I wonder if this posting will make it past the censor? Probably not. Nothing new there, either.
9:33 pm
Here's a question I'd like answered:
I agree that when the topic is women's issues, experiences, and lives men should basically shut up and listen. So, why is it now- when the topic is MEN'S issues, lives, women are still telling men to shut up and listen, when the topic is US?
Honest question- why is that?
9:43 pm
Feminism has completely dominated the dialogue of gender studies. In its current state gender studies is hardly even a study but more like the acceptance of religious dogma that is meant to direct blame and hate at men. They are averse to actual empirical studies and maintain there stances based on self righteousness. The whole atmosphere they have created is we speak for all woman, men are evil, and men have no issues.
Someone needed to study men apart from the dogma of feminism.
10:45 pm
What I see here which is a bunch of spoiled little girls slapping their vaginas together to prop each other up.
You're cool and edgy hipsters with twats, how nice for you.
Next time I give you two any attention, I'm expecting one of you two to suck my dick so I can put up with the other one's "edgy" ranting.
11:15 pm
“Hey Spearhead dudes: all women are not the particular woman who hurt you that one time.”
This is a common assumption associated with the Men's Rights Movement, and with the idea of the field of Male Studies: That supporters are somehow wounded by a woman somewhere.
There are some men that have indeed been wounded, either through an unjust family court decision, or by a false rape accusation. There is no shortage of other horror stories that are told in such places as the Spearhead. That however, does NOT invalidate each individual story, nor does it argue against a better understanding of men, via a Male Studies curriculum.
But not all men or boys have been through such episodes. There is a great number of men that have simply become aware of the misandry that permeates 21st century modern society via more subtle means, and have not had to pay the price that many other of our brothers have paid. I would include myself in that group.
This assertion: “all women are not the particular woman who hurt you that one time” is something that we've heard before. It is a slight variation in the NAWALT (Not-All-Women-Are-Like-That) fallacy, and we've discussed it length.
But does that really matter? Does that in some way indicate that male studies is a waste of time? As the authors of the False Rape Society blog like to say, the question hardly survives the statement.
12:45 am
Gee, you poor babies. Can't stand to have a little light shown on men? Afraid people might see the good in men?
Feminism has put out lie after lie about men for over 40 years. Afraid that you'll have a harder time spreading hate and lies against men now that we're getting organized? Too bad.
Either way, feminists have lost the war. If you win, society disintegrates. Men don't really have a stake in society now anyway so we don't lose very much.
If we win, you feminists will be pushed to the margins of society with all the other hate-based supremicist movements.
12:59 am
@Roland: I sincerely apologize, but I just cannot remember Amanda attacking or slandering the He-Man Woman Haters Club. You all slithered over here to engage in macho posturing and congratulate each other on how funny you all are entirely unbidden.
I would think that the He-Man Woman Hater's Club would send its leader, but instead there are wave after wave of idiot flunkies. Your movement is clearly angry that women won't listen to you, won't do what you say; you have fallen in love with a word, misandry, that you use entirely too much.
Your movement is filled, fore and aft, top to bottom, standing-room only, with idiots. And you are one of them.
Idiot.
3:40 am
@leftsidepositive
Do you really want to argue who is favoured in health care. The inequalities you bring up makes me think you are incapable of critical thinking. Far more resources are spent on women's health even after labour related health; despite the fact than men's health is worse in nearly across the board.
The lower attendance of men in college is no surprise seeing how for the last twenty years boys have been doing worse than girls in school and has been getting worse. Yet once again somehow more money is being spent on helping girls out.
The argument that "but more men are at the top" is no excuse for leaving boys uneducated. one of the most basic rights in a first world country is an education and we have the obligation of providing it to both genders. That argument is preposterous in so many ways. While men are at the top you make no mention that men are also at the bottom, in jail or homeless. Men and women make different choices any differences can't just be assumed to be workplace discrimination. When all else is equal, such as hours and occupation, the wage gap goes away. [On a side note women still have purchasing power and fittingly married men work more than single men.]
On the topic of violence towards women do you really think its just a meaningless phrase. Its completely sexist whereby the government gives special status to female recipients of violence. The amount of money and education spent on the subject... the unequalled support given to the victims... the ease of arrests and unique violations of constitutional rights of the accused.
When you add in the aspect of men's reproductive and fathers rights or lack thereof you find that men are disadvantaged in probably some of the most important aspects of what it means to be human in a first world county. That is the right to education, good health, and family.
4:38 am
Its wonderful the see people like the blog author and a minority of the commentators regrister their beliefs in misinformation and misandry so openly. Unlike feminism, the mens movement doesnt need to create strawmen and misinformation. The issues are there for anyone than not engaged in mainstream feminist culture. The logical and well sourced arguments on the behalf of the pro-male contrubuters to this and the other inane blogs that attacked the idea of male studies are responded to by the anti- people with negative stereotyping and factoid and catch based information. What a house of cards the blog author and others of her mindset live in.
Keep twittering amanda, you go grrrl.
4:41 am
Its wonderful the see people like the blog author and a minority of the commentators regrister their beliefs in misinformation and misandry so openly. Unlike feminism, the mens movement doesnt need to create strawmen. The issues are there for anyone than not engaged in mainstream feminist culture. The logical and well sourced arguments on the behalf of the pro-male contriubuters to this and the other inane feminist blogs that attacked the idea of male studies are responded to by the anti-male people with negative stereotyping and factoid and catch phrase based information. What a house of cards the blog author and others of her mindset live in.
Keep twittering amanda anti-male propaganda, you go grrrl.
6:58 am
This comments section is very wow. It would seem that the vast majority of commenters skimmed the post, saw the joke about opening pickle jars, and jumped straight to the comment box to express their righteous outrage without noticing that much of the rest of the post is pretty much saying, "but I complain about trivial things too, so I dunno." In fact, Amanda and Sady don't even really settle on criticizing the "male studies" idea from that angle, but rather the angle that this fledgling field seems focused on a very narrow and, dare we say, oppressive view of masculinity. In fact, Amanda and Sady go out of their way to point out that men can be and are very oppressed and that they are not very oppressed at all in the grand scheme of things! And yet this is an entry in some kind of grand feminist war of the sexes? It's almost as if these commenters have no desire to engage with the text at all, instead repeating canned talking point...... nah. That couldn't be.
Seriously, though, of it wasn't for the repeated mentions of pickle jars and male studies, I don't think I'd be able to differentiate this comment thread from that of any other feminist article attacked by anti-feminist types. You'd think they'd at least be jumping on the fact that Sady actually made a self-effacing joke about feminists yelling "oppression!" at inconsequential annoyances, but... no. The reading comprehension at work seems to be, "These women do not like the idea of male studies. Also I think they are making fun at me."
In addition, I was particularly impressed by this exchange:
“'They’re pointing out that many people, including feminists, have certain privileges inherent in being white, or male, or straight, or able-bodied. This privilege doesn’t always mean they live a “privileged” life in all ways, just that they don’t have to think about certain things very hard.'
'Are you really this fucking stupid? Did I not already debunk the ‘privileged’ myth? What you are basically saying is that if you are breathing, you are alive and you have a pulse, consider yourself ‘privileged’. Please lady, withdraw from your Womyn’s Studies classes and get a real job. I refuse to be shamed into silence because I am alive, and ipso facto, privileged.'"
Because queer disabled women of color apparently do not exist. They are like unicorns! Actually, the implication may be that they are zombies. To be fair, I guess I haven't actually checked any of the ones I've met for pulses. Perhaps there is simply a dearth of rigorous and unbiased studies on the undead status of intersectionally oppressed people.
10:54 am
Okay, folks who came over from the "men's rights" sites, one question in three parts:
In "male studies," which men count, which men don't, and why?
It seems to me as if "male studies" is just an academic cover for the same old gender policing.
11:41 am
Garland Grey and Jennifer S.:
You're complaints that this article is more even-handed than some of the commenters are giving it credit for is, to an extent, accurate (although it seems clear that Garland is not serious in this objection, since your comment itself refers to those angered by this treatment as belonging to the "He-Man Woman Haters Club", which does not speak well for your insistence that your objective is not to be insulting). However, there are several good reasons not to view this article in this way.
First and foremost, are the other three articles she has posted (in fairly rapid succession with this one) on this topic--the article previous to this one, the article two positions after this one, and the article following it--a suquence of increasingly hysterical efforts to consider the topic you claim she is not "attacking" the butt of a joke rather than a serious academic endeavor. In view of this progression, your efforts to dismiss the commentary here as needless whining seem facetious at best.
Second, you (Jennifer) note that Amanda admits, in this article, that she "also" engages in some writing about trivial offenses she perceives, or at least wants others to perceive, as indicative of larger societal injustice. Yet you have entirely ignored that a large part of the message of this piece is that the concerns expressed in defense of men are necessarily all of this sort, whereas women are identified both with this sort of trivial personal offense (oppressed by someone hitting into you with a shopping cart) and nebulous, but clearly more serious offenses. The implication here, that it is impossible that men have actual issues to discuss about the straight, white, male, cisgendered experience (never mind that nothing in the study of the male as male implies that it has to be white or straight--and differences in the experience of different races are important)--or, at least, that they can't possibly be serious ones.
Third, the "pickle jars" claim was not a single throw-away comment. Throughout the article, both the author and the interview subject repeatedly referred to trivialities in their characterization of the complaints of men from moving books and furniture, to problems grilling, to, yes, opening pickle jars. As a single claim, you would perhaps be correct in stating that the comment was unworthy of note. But not when it is a major theme of the piece.
Fourth, and of significantly less import than my first three claims, is the note at the end that Sady, the interview subject, was not sober during the interview--I don't see any way to parse this other than that she does not believe this topic requires serious consideration. While I have no particular problem with recreational drinking, one does not give an interview about a subject that one takes seriously while cognitively impaired (given that it would reduce one's ability to effectively communicate one's position). If Amanda chose to interview Sady under such circumstances (assuming that it was reasonable for her to determine that Sady was drinking--if, for instance she was drinking during the interview) then she would be complicit in this complete disregard for the opinions and experiences of others.
In view of this, the commenters here asserting that Amanda is, indeed, working specifically to try to belittle men and the male experience appear to have a significant factual basis for their claims.
11:43 am
@jfpbookworm,
People are afraid that Male Studies will be a reassertion of traditional masculinity. (I think that's what you're getting it) I can assure you it is not. It is the opposite. Male Studies will serve to open men's eyes to their many options. Currently, men still believe they must slave away for a woman's affection, be chivalrous, hold doors open, etc etc. I think we all know this is not the case. Manners yes, chivalry no.
Male Studies is open to all men: straight, gay, trans, whatever. All men are welcome.
Since Male Studies does directly challenge feminist assumptions, there will be much pain coming our way. Public moneys that are directed to women will cut in half, and 50% will be shifted to men. Fair is fair.
Men have no reproductive freedom. None. If a woman aborts, he must go along with her decision. If a woman keeps the baby, he must go along with her decision. If she keeps it and he doesn't want it, he still pays -for 18 years. She has all the reproductive choices, he has none.
@JenniferS,
"Because queer disabled women of color apparently do not exist. They are like unicorns! Actually, the implication may be that they are zombies. To be fair, I guess I haven’t actually checked any of the ones I’ve met for pulses. Perhaps there is simply a dearth of rigorous and unbiased studies on the undead status of intersectionally oppressed people."
This is where you reveal your true colors, my dear lass, and you will lose. Did you think your poaching of the minority vote would go undiscovered? I can also poach the queer disabled person of color vote. Male studies is not a hetero-normative enterprise. We are inclusive of all trans, gay, straight, disabled, aged, persons of color, whatever. Male Studies will try, first and foremost, to free men from the tyranny of matriarchal oppression.
Nice try though, honey.
11:55 am
Hmmm...it appears that at the beginning of my previous comment I accidentally used "you're" for "your". Alas, typos exist.
12:53 pm
Male Studies is open to all men: straight, gay, trans, whatever. All men are welcome.
We are inclusive of all trans, gay, straight, disabled, aged, persons of color, whatever.
Okay, I'll bite: what are you all doing to specifically include gay men, trans men, men with disabilities, and men of color? Just telling them they're welcome to sign your petitions?
2:15 pm
@ Garland Grey
"@Roland: I sincerely apologize, but I just cannot remember Amanda attacking or slandering the He-Man Woman Haters Club."
My comment was not directed at the author of this piece. It was directed at holy christ (comment #71).
"You all slithered over here to engage in macho posturing and congratulate each other on how funny you all are entirely unbidden."
Very few of the comments from the men visiting here are consistent with your description of trying to be funny. Most of us are here to make a point about the need for a Male Studies curriculum.
"I would think that the He-Man Woman Hater’s Club would send its leader, but instead there are wave after wave of idiot flunkies."
We've had a number of leaders from our movement already appear: Snark, Paul Elam, and many others. But this appears to be an open comments section. Are you saying that you believe that it should not be? You want to censor all but MRM leadership? OK. As long as everyone else is censored, except the authors of this piece.
"Your movement is clearly angry that women won’t listen to you, won’t do what you say; you have fallen in love with a word, misandry, that you use entirely too much."
We're angry at a lot of things. But those you list are trivial compared to other very serious concerns that you seem to want to ignore.
And get used to the word "misandry." It is going to come up more and more often, though I doubt that it will ever be as ubiquitous and over-used as "misogyny."
"Your movement is filled, fore and aft, top to bottom, standing-room only, with idiots. And you are one of them.
Idiot."
Nice try, but that arrow missed the mark. Since you do not know me (nor any other of the men posting here), you cannot come to any conclusions about our intellectual capacities.
But I think I know you. Your use of language indicates that you are a sexist bigot.
3:13 pm
Men, if you could actually read the article, you would notice that the feminist writers above state that there are many different kinds of oppression--not just related to gender. There are issues related to race, poverty, education, health, family, nationality, language, country (or even neighborhood!) of origin, and on and on.
And, as for the fool who said "I never saw a privileged man," that is sheer, unmitigated nonsense. Yes, there are abundant issues involving the factors of race, poverty, education, etc.--but do you think that women are somehow exempted from these issues? You are so easily distracted by gender that you're letting your resentment prevent you from finding strategies to address these problems. It's basically the good-old-fashioned "Southern Strategy" that keeps the middle- and lower-middle-class voting Republican against their best interests.
So many of you try to say "but we men are so oppressed!!" simply as a means to say "back to the kitchen with you, woman!" while utterly failing to address issues that lead to these difficulties (and having no credible thesis for how women are somehow responsible for all these woes!). You use them simply as a means to yell at women, without realizing that women and women's issues would be your allies in many of these causes.
For instance:
1) Workplace related accidents. For one thing, feminism wants to see more workplace parity in a wide variety of careers, so as more women are able to pursue more traditionally "male" careers (even dangerous ones), these stats would get more equal. More importantly, I and every other feminist I know fully support workplace-safety initiatives and worker's compensation, regardless of gender. (If I had to guess, judging by the very conservative rhetoric going on here, a number of these guys cheer whenever they hear "deregulation"...and what do you think this does for workplace safety?!)
2) The draft. First of all, women are still banned from serving in combat. You have your patriarchal power structure to thank for that. Feminist organizations like the National Organization for Women are trying to REVERSE the combat ban (equality--it's a good thing!). As for the draft itself, I'm opposed to it almost categorically (for men AND women) unless it's WWIII. If it really were necessary, I do think both men and women should be called to serve their country based on their ability to do so regardless of gender (and those drafted but unfit for combat should be required to assist the war effort in other ways). The feminists of my acquaintance and I all feel that we need to reduce military aggression and exercise far more caution than we have in our military policy, rather than killing and wounding thousands of our men AND women (not to mention foreign civilians) in ill-thought out foreign exploits.
3) Prison rape. As I've already pointed out, this very blog has discussed the issues of prison rape for BOTH genders (and trans men and women and everything in between). Also, I'm very opposed to the war on drugs which leads to the needless arrest and incarceration of hundreds of thousands of people (male and female). Feminism has made great strides to bring sexual violence issues into the national consciousness, and rape victims of both genders benefit from that activism. See this very blog about "Male Rape Victims and the Penetration Problem" which addresses unwanted sex in terms of exploitation and lack of consent for either gender, and works against the stereotypes that women are always passive and men always want sex, stereotypes which hurt men AND women. In contrast, consider very UN-feminist organizations like, oh, the Catholic Church...they take sexual assaults against males *very* seriously, don't they?!
4) Suicide. I (and, I believe, feminists in general) support adequate health care for all and mental health parity (that is, not letting insurance companies deny mental health care expenses), which would help prevent suicides for a variety of reasons. I also support funding for rehabilitation and support for alcoholism and other forms of substance abuse, which would help suicide stats a lot more than railing at women! I also support stronger gun control and mental health evaluation for those buying firearms, primarily to prevent rampage shootings, but I would also consider preventing firearms from getting into the hands of suicidal persons (male or female) to be an important concern.
5) Divorce. Let's consider instead the fact that women bear a seriously disproportionate burden for childcare and domestic work in most marriages, and this may seriously impact their lack of satisfaction in their marriage. When women initiate divorce, they usually experience a *decline* in their standard of living (estimated at 25-30%) while men usually experience a 10% benefit in their standard of living. So, the MRA stereotype of women being divorce mercenaries is nonsense. Moreover, if women are willing to have a lower standard of living to get out of a marriage, it's unlikely that her reasons are "trivial." Also, money is one of the leading causes of marital discord. Addressing equal opportunities for employment, quality childcare options, etc. would do a lot more than blaming women for seeking divorce. Substance abuse is another leading cause of divorce, and when you consider that 2/3 of alcoholics are men, it's not really surprising that women initiate divorce proceedings. As for alimony, this is mainly a result of men having more assets than their wives generally. When the woman is more affluent than her ex-husband, I fully support her paying alimony to him.
6) Education. I have long been an opponent of No Child Left Behind, and favor increases in education funding to attract talented teachers and prevent schools from becoming stifling dens of rote memorization, that may very well disadvantage boys and is a general buzzkill for everybody. The vast majority of feminists believe that education is a vital aspect of our national and social well-being, and support quality public education being available for all. Feminists also write against and oppose zero-tolerance policies that lead to unreasonable suspensions and facilitate the school-to-prison pipeline, the correction of which would help a great many boys AND girls realize their educational goals.
So in conclusion, angry men above, the issues you try to claim are evidence of your "oppression" are not the fault of feminism (or of women in general), but are related to other social and political factors that women would very well be your allies in addressing, if only you weren't so resentful of us trying to attain economic, social, and political equality.
3:35 pm
@jfpbookworm,
Um, ya. What else are we supposed to do? What do you recommend?
4:07 pm
@LeftSidePositive,
1) "Workplace related accidents. For one thing, feminism wants to see more workplace parity in a wide variety of careers, so as more women are able to pursue more traditionally “male” careers (even dangerous ones), these stats would get more equal."
This is absolute BS and you know it. Women are not interested in heating, ventilation and air conditioning and you know it. Men have bent over backwards to get women into the trades and they still won't do it. Art, painting, pottery and crafts, social sciences and the humanities women still overwhelmingly go into. There is NO DISCRIMINATION based on gender. We've been waiting 40 years for women to lace up the work boots and go to masonry school and they never do.
The question is, why?
Male Studies will be actively challenging feminism on these core tenets. The hypocrisy of demanding equality, then victimhood, when the doors to success have been open for decades.
2) The draft.
Women have not proven themselves worthy of combat. In all units where women are involved, cohesion suffers. Women are just a bad idea in the service and on ships.
3) Prison Rape
Lies, lies and more lies. Feminist organizations ignore male prison rape. If you continue to pawn that off as truth then you are quite simply, a liar.
4) Suicide
You express a concern for the treatment of suicidal males, but doncha think it's interesting that you don't actually wonder why men would consider this as an option?
5) Divorce
Again, you cite the woman's dissatisfaction within the marriage. But what about the children? Statistics prove over and over that children from broken homes suffer more than children from intact homes. You insinuate that it is alcoholism that destroys a marriage, but again, statistics prove that out of all marriages that end in divorce, only 6% of those involve abuse of alcohol. The other 94% of marriages end because the woman has, quite simply, gotten bored.
In conclusion, your deliberate obfuscation of the facts of women's general lack of interest in the hard sciences and trades, women's preponderance to divorce out of boredom even if it is harmful to the children, your outright lie that feminists are actively defending males that are victims of prison rape, your lack of interest as to why males commit suicide, all of the above demonstrate the NEED FOR MALE STUDIES. You dismissing us as angry is called SHAMING LANGUAGE.
You may be the most protected, coddled cohort of women in the history of the world. Male studies will assert the revolutionary notion that men are human beings, of equal value and equal worth to women. When you tell us to 'sit down and shut up! Speak when you are spoken to! You are a bad person! That is called shaming language, and it means you are a bigot.
Women have 112 federally funded institutions which advance women's issues. Men have zero.
6:28 pm
jfpbookworm - Actually there were one and maybe two of the panelists for the male studies conference who are gay. Black men and women are also involved in parts of men's studies activities. Carnell Smith is a Black man from Georgia who has led the way in bringing awareness and reform to the damages of paternity fraud. It was a Black man in my state of Maryland who as a delegate to the Maryland Assembly introduced and stewarded the legislation for Maryland to create a "Maryland Commission for Men's Health" which has been functioning now for almost three years. There is a group of African Americans who are helping with the reform of the domestic violence laws and are partnering with numerous other groups who are working towards the same goal.
I could go on, but that gives you a start. The majority at this point are likely white and middle class but those leaders are interested in representing all men, not just some. Very different from feminism who seem to throw conservative women under the bus....
6:59 pm
David,
Hate to break it to you...but your ridiculous gender stereotypes are showing:
"Women are not interested in heating, ventilation and air conditioning and you know it."
and
"Women have not proven themselves worthy of combat. In all units where women are involved, cohesion suffers. Women are just a bad idea in the service and on ships."
I was going to quote all of your misogynistic statements, but that would mean I'd just copy and paste your entire fucking post.
You spew all this hatred of women and then you say it's a "revolutionary notion" that "men are human beings, of equal value and equal worth to women." That's rich, after you've spent an entire post denigrating women's competence and abilities!!
If we ever needed more proof that "Male Studies" is about preserving antiquated and derogatory attitudes towards women, you've provided it amply!
Oh, poor baby! Men don't have any federally funded institutions to advance their interests? Like, every single president?! Seven (recently eight) of nine supreme court justices? Eighty-two percent of congresspeople AND senators? Practically the entire defense department, the Fed, Energy & Commerce, etc., etc.?! I don't think you quite realize that men's issues are considered "mainstream" and "serious" and women's issues are relegated to "other." You've gotten so used to running the whole show that you can't stand when a group you've ignored wants to assert themselves.
But thanks, I'm so glad some random jackass at a computer can just declare that women have had equal opportunities for decades while completely ignoring any social, political, and economic factors that may indicate otherwise, and magnanimously declare all of our problems over. Yeah. Really, that fucking helps.
No, we don't tell men collectively to sit down & shut up, or to only speak when spoken to. Women are genuinely interested in hearing men's thoughts and concerns, and as I've shown above (although you're too dense & hateful to understand) many feminist (or just generically liberal) beliefs advance men's causes too. We'd like to be 50% of the conversation and you're angry because you're used to being 80% of the conversation and now you feel threatened. Any man who doesn't show up a priori with any variant of "but women just aren't good enough at X," "she totally deserved it/wanted it/asked for it," or "men and women are inherently different and should be treated as such" will get a fair hearing and have their concerns listened to and respected. Anyone who does espouse such sexist views like the ones you just did will be quite justly criticized and dismissed for the neanderthal that you are.
It's not bigotry to criticize someone for behaving like an intolerant imbecile, and you, Dave and many others on this comment thread, are behaving like intolerant imbeciles. I certainly don't make that assumption about any man I see, but if you show me such sexist attitudes I will judge you based on your behavior. We are under no obligation to be tolerant of your intolerance. Feminists do not (contrary to your delusions) dislike men--we only dislike men (and women) who behave like total douchebags, and who spew the kind of shit that you just did above, because it's ignorant, derogatory, and harmful.
7:22 pm
LSP, I am encouraged by your detailed analysis. If the original article had presented anywhere near that level of detail, rather than being a purely dismissive tirade, it would likely have had a very different reception.
I do, however, find fault with your argument.
1) You say feminism wants to see more workplace parity "in a wide variety of careers", but I have yet to meet a feminist who has put any sort of serious effort into, for instance, getting more women involved in the coal mining industry (brought up because of the recent deaths in West Virginia). Similarly, the only feminists (by self-identification) that I have ever run across bemoaning the lack of men interested in teaching primary education have also been supporters of the idea that "All Men are Potential Rapists" (with the attendant belief that they need to be repeatedly notified of this). Yet their insistence on the latter has a clear effect on the prevalence of the former.
The hypocrisy typically present in this category is clear; most feminist's "wide variety" of careers are all safe service jobs (with the usual exception of women in combat, which I will get to momentarily)--feminists seem to have no problem fighting for special privileges for women interested in being doctors and lawyers, but working as a lumberjack or on an Alaskan fishing vessel better come with maternity leave and flex time.
2) a) The biggest problem, with regards to women in combat, is the continued insistence on separate standards for men and women in training and duty qualification. Women aren't allowed in combat for a reason; the amount of gear they would need to carry (and the chance that they would need to carry another soldier who had been wounded) is too large, in general, for a person not meeting the physical qualifications set for men. (Note: I say this as someone who has spoken with members of the armed forces about these issues; I have no direct experience with the matter.) There is also an issue with unit cohesion, but if this were the only concern (as it was when units were still segregated on the basis of race) it would be insufficient.
Feminism's efforts to allow women into combat, if successful, will have direct negative effects on combat effectiveness (and survival), without uniform standards for physical ability. Yet uniform standards still would not result in any sort of equality in this regard, since so few women (even fewer than the 10% or so of women already composing the armed forces) would meet them.
b) You still have not taken an actual position regarding the draft. You stand opposed to it, "unless it's WWIII". If it could ever be necessary, and you think both men and women should be expected to serve, why are you not campaigning to have women be required to sign up for that possibility. With nearly half a century of feminism, do you really think that they just never thought of this? That they never got around to it? That anyone would have stopped a serious push for this?
The continued failure of feminism to take action regarding the draft, in either direction, is a significant testimony to the fact that, as a political force, feminism is interested in empowering women, not equality.
3) It is difficult to say that feminists take the rape of men seriously when they spout such nonsense as, "All heterosexual sex is rape". It is similarly difficult to take feminists concerns regarding prison rape seriously when they make light of false rape accusations--those who have been imprisoned for committing rape are themselves significant targets for prison rape. This makes the comments of some feminists that a victim of a false rape accusation will hopefully learn something from the experience particularly harrowing.
Feminists have been dragged, kicking and screaming, into recognition of the prison rape issue. Feminists have been dragged, kicking and screaming, into recognizing the false rape accusation issue. Standing behind these issues as defense of the idea that feminism is also about dealing with issues faced by men is largely disingenuous. These issues may really mean something to you, or they may not, but the significant political power of NOW and other feminist organizations has done little to combat them and a great deal to suppress them. Consider, for instance, the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003. Not a single major feminist organization lobbied for this bill. Numerous religious groups (though not including the Catholic church you so recently derided) did. A group identifying itself as anti-feminist did.
While I consider your tolerance for drug use admirable, it is largely unrelated to the rest of this discussion.
4) Your stance on suicide is a laundry list of treating symptoms, and not of fighting causes. Greater healthcare access won't save the lives of men who kill themselves after being bankrupted by divorce. Seeing a therapist is not a real substitute for seeing your own children. If you take away guns as a method, men will use other methods. You can't protect people from themselves; they will jump off of a building, or intentionally crash their cars at high speed, or knife themselves, or drown themselves, etc. I am not a psychologist, but changing the circumstances that lead to suicide seems like it might be a more effective tactic to me than limiting civil rights.
5) Is there a reason that all these women aren't talking about these issues before their marriages? Never mind that the "vastly disproportionate" burdens you are talking about often don't include many stereotypically male activities (car repair, anything occurring physically outside the home) as housework. Similarly, the number you are asserting reflect the financial situation for ex-spouses specifically when women initiate divorce are actually averages across all divorces (the older, larger figures that were originally published having been complete fabrications). These figures also do not include the effects of alimony and child support, which often have a vastly larger effect than the percentages you have cited.
Money is a leading cause of marital discord; this is, in fact, a major MRA complaint. Women, spending their husbands' money, can continue to do so after the divorce, leaving a man powerless to try to reign in the irresponsible shopping habits of his wife in an effort to save for retirement and/or disaster. To some degree this is stereotypical, but there is significant evidence for claims regarding gender differences in savings rate and spending habits.
Your comments on alcoholism, on the other hand, are correct. However, they account for only a small fraction of the difference between male- and female-initiated divorce.
Your comment about alimony, on the other hand, is ridiculous. Alimony is not supposed to be assessed on the basis of assets; it was instituted as redress for lost earning potential when a woman was "oppressed" by not having to work while married. While a certain amount of redress while a non-working spouse seeks a job after a divorce is at least somewhat reasonable, that feminist organizations continue to defend the idea of lifetime alimony (consider for instance, the support of the Women's Bar Association of the toothless Senate Bill 1616 over the House Bill 1785 in the ongoing battle over Massachusetts Alimony Reform), makes clear their agenda to advance the interests of women, not the interest of equality.
Your comment regarding women who pay alimony is appreciated precisely to the extent that it is relevant-- 4% of the people who pay alimony are women, so I'll note that I appreciate your sentiment 8%. The good news here is that it marks you as significantly less of a hypocrite than many people. That, at least, is refreshing.
6) It's nice that you have taken the stance of the left on yet another issue, but apart from your comment here on drug use you haven't actually taken a stand on any of the many real problems faced by boys in education: teaching whole-language rather than phonics, persistent misandry in sex ed (I personally had sex ed teachers in elementary, middle, and high school, all of whom seriously believed that women are superior to men--and told the class as much), female-only programs without male analogues, sex-segregated education only being permissible for girls, medication as a method of behavioral control, etc. While this is certainly not an exhaustive list, feminist organizations have stood in opposition to all of these issues.
As it stands, women can certainly be allies in the fight to redress these issues, feminist political organizations have aligned themselves against all of this.
Finally, as regards your response to David--he was rather wide of the mark (the 6% statistic for instance, is the fraction of cases involving spousal abuse, not substance abuse...though I am writing from memory). However, there is one particular aspect of your argument worthy of note:
Oh, poor baby! Men don’t have any federally funded institutions to advance their interests? Like, every single president?! Seven (recently eight) of nine supreme court justices? Eighty-two percent of congresspeople AND senators? Practically the entire defense department, the Fed, Energy & Commerce, etc., etc.?! I don’t think you quite realize that men’s issues are considered “mainstream” and “serious” and women’s issues are relegated to “other.” You’ve gotten so used to running the whole show that you can’t stand when a group you’ve ignored wants to assert themselves.
Tell me, in, for instance, Elizabethan England, since England had a queen but not a king, does that automatically imply that women's interests were looked out for in that society but men's interests weren't? How about Victorian England? How do you think male serfs felt about their predominantly male rulers?
Sharing a gender, a race, an orientation, or indeed just about anything else (other than wealth) with your political leaders is not a guarantee that they are actually doing anything to look out for your interests. In modern America women--being an organized political unit--exert much more influence in favor of their collective needs than men do. Yet you stand here, with this author, against an effort to begin constructing an edifice that will actually look out for the interests of men.
8:11 pm
"Oh, poor baby! Men don’t have any federally funded institutions to advance their interests? Like, every single president?! Seven (recently eight) of nine supreme court justices? Eighty-two percent of congresspeople AND senators? Practically the entire defense department, the Fed, Energy & Commerce, etc., etc.?! I don’t think you quite realize that men’s issues are considered “mainstream” and “serious” and women’s issues are relegated to “other.” You’ve gotten so used to running the whole show that you can’t stand when a group you’ve ignored wants to assert themselves."
Which is why everyone laughs at the concept of a "mancession", right?
Or how, in a climate where 80% of the jobs lost are by men and mostly in infrastructure, 40% of the funds to fix it are allocated to women in social sciences? How is studying the non-existent wage gap going to help your tanking infrastructure?
When was the last time you heard about the prostate cancer epidemic? Have you heard about any "men's" centres lately? I'm still waiting for my "National Department of Men's Studies."
As for "I was going to quote all of your misogynistic statements, but that would mean I’d just copy and paste your entire fucking post."
Sorry, I'm an engineer and work in a field that covers among others: heating, ventilation and air conditioning and can tell you that in general, women AREN'T all that interested in the field. Feminists even dedicate hundreds of thousands of dollars to find out WHY women don't want to (ironic, since they obviously don't want to).
Given the rant, it looks like someone really got to you by simply stating facts. Oh, poor baby.
10:22 pm
The blind rage and hatred that spews from so many women on this blog is shocking. Men have issues that need to be addressed. Why are women so threatened by this? Why are society’s blatant, institutionalized, legalized double standards concerning men encouraged by most feminists?
There are two sexes in this world. It is in all of our best interest get along with each other instead of women making men the enemy.
10:35 pm
Arbitrary, thanks for making a good-faith effort at a discussion. You're still dealing pretty heavily in the stereotypes, but I can appreciate your earnest interest in these issues. As for your points:
getting more women involved in the coal mining industry
I think that's because I'd encourage everyone, male or female, to get OUT of the coal mining industry if at all possible! Not a big fan of coal mining in from an environmental or energy standpoint anyway. In the meantime, I support stringent safety requirements, a thorough investigation of incidents like the recent tragedy, and research into automation to put as few human beings in harm's way as possible.
“All Men are Potential Rapists”
I think you misunderstand--woman are constantly taught (esp. by men or by conservative women) that if we, as women, wear something wrong, go to the wrong place, talk to the wrong person, get drunk, etc., that we are "asking for it." Did you read about how hard it is for women to get a rape kit? THAT is where the "all men are potential rapists" attitude comes from--that so many (decidedly non-feminist) sources declare that if a woman acts the wrong way, men just can't help it and can't be held responsible for what they do to women.
special privileges for women interested in being doctors and lawyers
Having time to nurse babies, raise kids, and decent family leave options are not "special privileges." In fact, I think this type of flexibility should be extended to men, too, who deserve time and support to be involved in their families.
working as a lumberjack or on an Alaskan fishing vessel better come with maternity leave and flex time.
I don't know nearly enough about these industries to offer practical solutions, but yes, all industries should make reasonable accommodations to individuals' personal and medical needs.
the amount of gear they would need to carry
There are a lot of wimpy guys in the world, too! If you can pass basic training, you should be good to go, regardless of gender.
There is also an issue with unit cohesion
As with Don't Ask Don't Tell, "unit cohesion" is a totally bullshit argument.
without uniform standards for physical ability.
For one thing, the technical advances in weaponry mean there are tons of opportunities to serve in combat with means other than brute force. But, for a given assignment of course there should be uniform standards of physical ability.
so few women (even fewer than the 10% or so of women already composing the armed forces) would meet them.
I believe that every person is an individual. If an individual woman CAN meet those standards, who are you to stop her??
why are you not campaigning to have women be required to sign up for that possibility.
Why am I not campaigning for something that I am strongly opposed to for both men and women? Well, for starters, maybe because I think it's wrong...
That anyone would have stopped a serious push for this?
Um, look above at your own comments about women's fitness for the military.
The continued failure of feminism to take action regarding the draft
Or, maybe because we have other things to worry about besides a program that most of us are generally opposed to but hasn't been in effect for 37 years. (And, back in 1973, be it noted we were a little busy with this thing called Roe v. Wade!)
they spout such nonsense as, “All heterosexual sex is rape”.
This is nonsense, and no real feminist has ever said it. Conservative blogs and commentators love to misquote and flat-out make up shit like this, but keep in mind statements like that are from embittered men putting words into feminists' mouths. Just look up Dworkin and/or MacKinnon in Snopes.com.
they make light of false rape accusations
Not true--they point out that false rapes are very, very rare, and lower than/comparable to the rates of false accusations for other crimes. And yet, false rape accusations get LOTS of attention. If you look at rape statistics and the extraordinary difficulty of getting prosecution (RAINN has good info on this), women who have genuinely been raped are far more likely to be accused of making up a story (see last Thursday's Washington City Paper!) than a man is to be falsely charged with rape. The 2001 US Department of Justice "First Response to Victims of Crime" reports a false rape accusation rate of 2%--similar to that of other crimes.
a victim of a false rape accusation will hopefully learn something from the experience particularly harrowing.
That is pretty harrowing, but as far as I know totally unfounded. Please provide a source for this utterly ludicrous claim. I do not support, nor does anyone I know or respect support, the notion that rape is an acceptable punishment for anything. I'm a big fan of the 8th Amendment!
the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003. Not a single major feminist organization lobbied for this bill.
Literally NO ONE opposed this bill. It passed with unanimous consent, and very quickly. Why spend energy lobbying something that no one opposes anyway?
Greater healthcare access won’t save the lives of men who kill themselves after being bankrupted by divorce. Seeing a therapist is not a real substitute for seeing your own children.
You're going to have to provide some data that this is actually why men kill themselves in large numbers. Without that, this reads just like you're picking a public health issue and baselessly blaming women for it.
If you take away guns as a method, men will use other methods.
I already showed that women attempt suicide TWICE as frequently as men. The reason men have more completed attempts is because of the use of firearms.
changing the circumstances that lead to suicide seems like it might be a more effective tactic to me than limiting civil rights.
And "changing the circumstances" means what, exactly? Trying to force women to stay in marriages that are not working for them? Isn't THAT a pretty major limiting of civil rights?
Is there a reason that all these women aren’t talking about these issues before their marriages?
Is there a reason that MEN aren't talking about these issues before marriage? No one thinks their marriage will break up, and when it does they're unprepared.
Never mind that the “vastly disproportionate” burdens you are talking about often don’t include many stereotypically male activities (car repair, anything occurring physically outside the home) as housework.
Not true. The Bureau of Labor Statistics Time Use Survey indicates that it does.
These figures also do not include the effects of alimony and child support, which often have a vastly larger effect than the percentages you have cited.
Care to cite any evidence for that? I know too many links will put a post in a moderation queue, but at least state the name of a study or something!
Women, spending their husbands’ money, can continue to do so after the divorce, leaving a man powerless to try to reign in the irresponsible shopping habits of his wife in an effort to save for retirement and/or disaster. To some degree this is stereotypical, but there is significant evidence for claims regarding gender differences in savings rate and spending habits.
This is insane and too stereotypical to possibly take seriously. A divorce settlement entitles a party to a specific amount of money, whether they spend it irresponsibly or not. Also, differences in spending habits can have a lot to do with who does household purchases and groceries, as an April 9th piece in Salon's Broadsheet discussed.
Alimony is not supposed to be assessed on the basis of assets; it was instituted as redress for lost earning potential when a woman was “oppressed” by not having to work while married.
Dude, at least do a wikipedia search before you make these claims. Alimony dates back way before even the 19th century, and thus way before feminism.
teaching whole-language rather than phonics,
OK, I'm lost--WHAT is the gender claim here?!
persistent misandry in sex ed (I personally had sex ed teachers in elementary, middle, and high school, all of whom seriously believed that women are superior to men–and told the class as much)
Are you sure they weren't saying things like, "Girls are the sexual gatekeepers" or "Girls are more interested in commitment than sex" or "Girls are more sexually responsible and boys always want it"? Because feminists find those attitudes pretty offensive, too! These are traditional gender roles at work, not feminism! You have the patriarchy to thank for those attitudes, and it does NOT mean that women are revered as "perfect"--it means that if we're not perfect (which no one is!), we're shamed for it, treated as abnormal, and told we're "asking for it."
While this is certainly not an exhaustive list, feminist organizations have stood in opposition to all of these issues.
Please cite some sources. Anything. Really.
As it stands, women can certainly be allies in the fight to redress these issues, feminist political organizations have aligned themselves against all of this.
in, for instance, Elizabethan England, since England had a queen but not a king
And I think every single parliamentarian and church official was male! One person doesn't make everything okay...I didn't cite one person. I cited male dominance in every single branch of government. The likelihood of the makeup of the current House & Senate occurring by chance is 9.49x10^-58. In other words, infinitesimal.
How do you think male serfs felt about their predominantly male rulers?
Like I've said multiple times, gender is not the ONLY means of oppression, and class & poverty are huge factors (but, remember that those male rulers had the rights to sleep with their female serfs willing or not before you complain too much! See Figaro, Marriage of)
In modern America women–being an organized political unit–exert much more influence in favor of their collective needs than men do.
Yeah. When people hold up a healthcare bill expressly for the purpose of denying you a legal medical procedure, then we'll talk.
10:46 pm
Felidaeus, it is only after the "mancession" that women are employed in even roughly comparable numbers to men--according to the New York Times, 49.83% of the workforce is currently female. Obviously, I'd prefer workplace parity to come from women getting jobs rather than men losing them, but the fact is that women are not quite even at equality at the moment, and you're acting oppressed and wanting to turn back the clock already!
Actually, I'm a medical student so I hear about prostate cancer rather a lot. The vast majority of cases are not life-limiting, and the medical community is addressing some significant morbidity (e.g. impotence) from over-treatment.
I don't suppose feeling unwelcome in educational and workplace environments has anything to do with women's reluctance to go into these careers?! Look at your attitude and tell me you're surprised that women aren't beating down the door to be in the same field with you!
12:31 am
I'm always amazed how feminists demand that men pay attention to their problems while completely dismissing anything men say about their own.
Ah well.. what can you do?
1:45 am
@leftsidepositive
The people who lost their jobs due the recession deserve aid regardless of gender. Are you actually in support of strategically restricting support thereof because they are men. I suppose then that if we arbitrarily started putting women in jail you would find that fair; that is no different then ignoring those who lost their jobs because they are men. Despicable!!!
Your a medical student and you hear a lot about prostate cancer, good for you. What about the rest of the population... I hope your not denying the neglect of prostate cancer in comparison breast cancer. Compare the ratio of funding to deaths per year of both breast cancer and prostate cancer and you'll have your answer.
On a side note its not that I really think prostate cancer really needs that much more funding I'm just offended at lack of concern for men's health. I don't like the women's groups touting non stop about breast cancer to the exclusion of everyone else. You really want a system like that where we all just self advocate; What about the kids for God sakes. Good job first world white women, you already had the longest life span and now you are the most important cause. Everyone deserves to live to 90 except the men, colored folks, poor, and third world countries. Empowerment at its finest.
2:13 am
Are you kidding me, I don't want a woman back in the kitchen. I find that much less usefully today. Compared to hundreds of years ago cooking is easy. No skinning, plucking, or gutting. Store, fridge, oven, microwave, pre made food and ingredients, and a dishwasher. If your not anal then the upkeep of house is pretty easy with vacuum, washer, and dryer. Now children go to school all the way to 18 and for the households with stay at home moms the kids are usually also in after school programs.
F no I don't want you in the kitchen, I want you working and I want to see my kids too. I want to see you share the workplace fatalities.
But just go ahead and shout your victimhood every time anyone else tries to bring up their problems.
4:42 am
@LeftSidePositive,
"I think that’s because I’d encourage everyone, male or female, to get OUT of the coal mining industry if at all possible! Not a big fan of coal mining in from an environmental or energy standpoint anyway. In the meantime, I support stringent safety requirements, a thorough investigation of incidents like the recent tragedy, and research into automation to put as few human beings in harm’s way as possible."
This still doesn't address the fact that it is necessary work and for the most part, only men do it. Men do it because they are protecting and providing for their families. How dare you belittle them! Shame on you!
"I think you misunderstand–woman are constantly taught (esp. by men or by conservative women) that if we, as women, wear something wrong, go to the wrong place, talk to the wrong person, get drunk, etc., that we are “asking for it.” Did you read about how hard it is for women to get a rape kit? THAT is where the “all men are potential rapists” attitude comes from–that so many (decidedly non-feminist) sources declare that if a woman acts the wrong way, men just can’t help it and can’t be held responsible for what they do to women."
Exactly. If a woman dresses up in a slut uniform (tramp stamp, spray-on jeans, tongue-ring) she is ASKING FOR IT! You can't have it both ways! You cannot be a cock-tease and act surprised when the cock rams into you! Deal with it!
"Having time to nurse babies, raise kids, and decent family leave options are not “special privileges.” In fact, I think this type of flexibility should be extended to men, too, who deserve time and support to be involved in their families."
They are indeed privileges. They most certainly are not human rights. If a woman wants to have babies, then she must stay at home to care for them while her husband is working.
``I believe that every person is an individual. If an individual woman CAN meet those standards, who are you to stop her??
You do not believe that every person is an individual, or else you wouldn`t be shaming men into not being excited about Male Studies. According to you, men are to be shamed, mocked and belittled.
`Not true–they point out that false rapes are very, very rare, and lower than/comparable to the rates of false accusations for other crimes. And yet, false rape accusations get LOTS of attention. If you look at rape statistics and the extraordinary difficulty of getting prosecution (RAINN has good info on this), women who have genuinely been raped are far more likely to be accused of making up a story (see last Thursday’s Washington City Paper!) than a man is to be falsely charged with rape. The 2001 US Department of Justice “First Response to Victims of Crime” reports a false rape accusation rate of 2%–similar to that of other crimes
False rape accusations are somewhere in the neighbourhood of 10% of all reported rapes. That is a hell of a lot. William MacCaffrey just got out of prison after serving four years for a rape he never committed.
`Greater healthcare access won’t save the lives of men who kill themselves after being bankrupted by divorce. Seeing a therapist is not a real substitute for seeing your own children.
You’re going to have to provide some data that this is actually why men kill themselves in large numbers. Without that, this reads just like you’re picking a public health issue and baselessly blaming women for it.
If you were not aware that divorced men commit suicide in high numbers, then you are evil. Find the data yourself. It`s on google.
If you take away guns as a method, men will use other methods.
I already showed that women attempt suicide TWICE as frequently as men. The reason men have more completed attempts is because of the use of firearms.
This does not excuse the fact that women still do not finish the job when it comes to suicide. Maybe they attempt it, but what the fuck really matters here is the fact that men actually complete the job.
* * * * * * *
GENTLEMEN -HERE IS WHERE LEFTSIDEPOSITIVE REVEALS HER TRUE NATURE:
changing the circumstances that lead to suicide seems like it might be a more effective tactic to me than limiting civil rights.
And “changing the circumstances” means what, exactly? Trying to force women to stay in marriages that are not working for them? Isn’t THAT a pretty major limiting of civil rights?
Ah yes, a woman`s right to abandon her marriage and family. Way to go Leftsidepositive, way to think about the family, children, community and responsibilities. Thanks a lot!
Never mind that the “vastly disproportionate” burdens you are talking about often don’t include many stereotypically male activities (car repair, anything occurring physically outside the home) as housework.
Not true. The Bureau of Labor Statistics Time Use Survey indicates that it does.
No, you are LYING. The BLS Statistics Time Use Survey does not factor these chores into their data. You just fucking lied and I caught you!
Women, spending their husbands’ money, can continue to do so after the divorce, leaving a man powerless to try to reign in the irresponsible shopping habits of his wife in an effort to save for retirement and/or disaster. To some degree this is stereotypical, but there is significant evidence for claims regarding gender differences in savings rate and spending habits.
This is insane and too stereotypical to possibly take seriously. A divorce settlement entitles a party to a specific amount of money, whether they spend it irresponsibly or not. Also, differences in spending habits can have a lot to do with who does household purchases and groceries, as an April 9th piece in Salon’s Broadsheet discussed.
Salon is no authority on matters of marriage and divorce. You can do better than that.
Alimony is not supposed to be assessed on the basis of assets; it was instituted as redress for lost earning potential when a woman was “oppressed” by not having to work while married.
Dude, at least do a wikipedia search before you make these claims. Alimony dates back way before even the 19th century, and thus way before feminism.
You cleverly evaded the issue. Do you believe in alimony or not...please explain.
While this is certainly not an exhaustive list, feminist organizations have stood in opposition to all of these issues.
Please cite some sources. Anything. Really.
Alright, fuckwit. Look up the feminist lawyers in Massachussetts who are actively blocking alimony reform.
`in, for instance, Elizabethan England, since England had a queen but not a king
And I think every single parliamentarian and church official was male! One person doesn’t make everything okay…I didn’t cite one person. I cited male dominance in every single branch of government. The likelihood of the makeup of the current House & Senate occurring by chance is 9.49×10^-58. In other words, infinitesimal.
The top 1% of males do not represent the bottom 99% of males. Your lack of logic is breathtaking.
How do you think male serfs felt about their predominantly male rulers?
Like I’ve said multiple times, gender is not the ONLY means of oppression, and class & poverty are huge factors (but, remember that those male rulers had the rights to sleep with their female serfs willing or not before you complain too much! See Figaro, Marriage of)
This is one interpretation of history -the official feminist interpretation- but let`s not forget, men did not have the right to vote at this time, either. So male serfs were oppressed, too. See, I can get a Gold at the Oppression Olympics, too! Gotcha!
In modern America women–being an organized political unit–exert much more influence in favor of their collective needs than men do.
Yeah. When people hold up a healthcare bill expressly for the purpose of denying you a legal medical procedure, then we’ll talk.
Ya, let`s talk. If you think taxpayer-funded abortion is a human right, you really are one sick bitch. Bitches like you is all the proof I need that the feminazi reign of terror must come to an end. Male Studies is way overdue.
9:09 am
In an effort to avoid my commentary getting lost in some sort of moderation hell (as I am going to attempt to comply with your request for links) it will be broken down over multiple messages. In an effort to maintain my sanity, I may not finish the entire thing in one sitting.
I think that’s because I’d encourage everyone, male or female, to get OUT of the coal mining industry if at all possible! Not a big fan of coal mining in from an environmental or energy standpoint anyway. In the meantime, I support stringent safety requirements, a thorough investigation of incidents like the recent tragedy, and research into automation to put as few human beings in harm’s way as possible.
Coal represents about half of current US power consumption [<a href="http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/energyexplained/index.cfm?page=electricity_in_the_united_states"1]. Talk of alternative energies is all well and good, but coal isn't likely to be going anywhere for a while, unless we seriously get behind nuclear energy as a power source (which I would love to see, but don't seriously expect to occur). Similarly, while small changes to safety conditions may occur in light of the recent tragedy, there is likely to be another such disaster every few years anyway. Which brings us back to the underlying question: if, as a feminist, you are in favor of some sort of affirmative action program to get more female board members (as currently exists in Norway), then what about having an affirmative action program sending at least a certain proportion of women down on mining crews? I accept that you don't want there to be mining crews, and that you don't want to send anyone into danger, but this is precisely the hypocrisy that MRAs are trying to point out--feminists want special rules to force women into top management positions, to give women extra advantages at or near the top, but have no intention of applying those same rules to protect the men stuck at the bottom. As long as we need coal, someone will be going down those mine shafts, and part of the male experience is the expectation that they will be the people who are stuck doing this (an expectation shared by feminists).
I think you misunderstand–woman are constantly taught (esp. by men or by conservative women) that if we, as women, wear something wrong, go to the wrong place, talk to the wrong person, get drunk, etc., that we are “asking for it.” Did you read about how hard it is for women to get a rape kit? THAT is where the “all men are potential rapists” attitude comes from–that so many (decidedly non-feminist) sources declare that if a woman acts the wrong way, men just can’t help it and can’t be held responsible for what they do to women.
Given how often women complain about this, I have some knowledge of it (though I will not try to say that I understand someone else's experience). What you seem to have missed, perhaps because I did not elucidate it clearly, is the fact that the idea that men are all potential rapists is drilled into boys from the moment they are old enough to be told what rape is. Then, by adulthood, they know that if they even glance in the general direction of small children that they are clearly a pedophile.
Yes I am exaggerating. No, I'm not exaggerating by much. Consider, for instance, the fact that some airlines have policies of requiring that unaccompanied minors not be seated next to adult men. This, by itself, is an insult, but not necessarily a large one. But it is typical of a larger framework insinuating that it is appropriate that all men be treated as rapists by default. Is it any wonder, then, that men are anxious to be seen in public with small children? Or to be seen as interested in working with small children?
Having time to nurse babies, raise kids, and decent family leave options are not “special privileges.” In fact, I think this type of flexibility should be extended to men, too, who deserve time and support to be involved in their families.
Actually, I was thinking of affirmative action policies at medical and law schools. The comments about maternity leave and flex time had more to do with the professions of lumberjack and arctic fisherman, which I will discuss shortly.
Regarding the affirmative action at medical and law schools, I have a simple question--if you were personally in need of life-saving medical care, or in need of legal assistance--would you rather get it from the person who graduated at the top of their class in medical/law school, or the bottom? But then if the qualifications used to choose whom to admit to medical/law school are predictive of future performance (an assumption that should not go unquestioned), shouldn't we be admitting the best, regardless of other circumstances? Human lives and justice are at stake.
Additionally, so long as affirmative action programs exist, there will be doubt--both in the minds of those who may have been assisted by them and in the minds of others--as to whether or not any given person only got where they are on the basis of those programs. This thinking is abominable, but it is inevitable for as long as the groups assisted by affirmative action are readily identifiable.
I have rambled to some extent on this particular issue, but given your political position, I'm going to note that other problems I have with typical feminist positions (federally mandated leave, etc.) fall broadly under economic rights questions, that I fully expect you would ignore regardless of their gender-related connotations.
I don’t know nearly enough about these industries to offer practical solutions, but yes, all industries should make reasonable accommodations to individuals’ personal and medical needs.
And now we return to lumberjacking and arctic fishing. I mentioned these two professions in particular for three reasons: they are male dominated, they are extremely dangerous (which, in general, implies the first reason, with the exception of prostitution), and they each specifically make one of the two items I mentioned (maternity leave and flex time) appear absurd. First, lumberjacking, due to the strenuous physical activity involved, would have about the same effect on an unborn child as riding the world's highest acceleration roller coaster. I do not know how the industry deals with maternity leave (I assume the question has come up), but whatever system is involved must involve either paid (or unpaid) leave for half a year or more (or perhaps a stint behind a desk...though there can't be that many positions available for that sort of thing)--a system which, if any sort of gender parity were reached in that industry, would be unsustainable. Similarly, arctic fishing boats are at sea for days or weeks at a time--the precise opposite of flex time. Pretty much the only freedoms you have in when to work are when you leave, when you come back, and when you sleep in between. There is no possibility for work/life balance or other such niceties; you would need to magically teleport people back and forth from a sizable distance out to sea. The situation is second only, perhaps, to being a soldier out on deployment in terms of isolation from one's family.
There are a lot of wimpy guys in the world, too! If you can pass basic training, you should be good to go, regardless of gender.
There are lots of guys who probably wouldn't pass basic. I'd bet dollars to donuts I'm one of them. This isn't my point.
Feminists (and their predecessors) complained that there should be women in the military, so the military let women in. However, in order to avoid turning away the overwhelming majority of female volunteers, lower standards were set for their physical capabilities. Lowering those standards made your claim no longer true; passing basic training at those lower standards does not qualify a person for combat duty. And, lest we believe the common hype that there is no longer a meaningful difference between combat duty and non-combat duty, consider that women only represent between 2 and 3% of combat war deaths in Iraq (see here) despite being several times that fraction of the military presence on the ground there.
As with Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, “unit cohesion” is a totally bullshit argument.
Unlike with DADT, we're not talking about a bit of homophobia. We're talking about people being afraid to talk openly for fear of a career-ending sexual harassment charge. Even still, this reason would not stand on its own; as with racial integration, with no other obstacles, the unit would eventually adapt.
For one thing, the technical advances in weaponry mean there are tons of opportunities to serve in combat with means other than brute force. But, for a given assignment of course there should be uniform standards of physical ability.
In order to even out the load of carrying an assortment of differing weapons for differing purposes, different members of the unit are tasked with carrying a different fraction of some of the unit's collective resources. A single person unable to meet the basic physical strength standards means that everyone else must compensate by exceeding them in order to have the same collective carrying capacity. Perhaps this is possible, some of the time, for a few people. But reaching anything like gender parity would dramatically reduce the carrying capacity of a unit. These means exhausting people more, or leaving behind supplies that could be the difference between life and death.
I don't think anyone is going to object to women flying UAVs, and if you want to get involved in combat there's plenty of piracy off the coast of Somalia (and they seem to have developed a penchant for going after military vessels lately--their loss, I guess).
I believe that every person is an individual. If an individual woman CAN meet those standards, who are you to stop her??
Nobody. But women also aren't tested against those standards, and until they are (and designated as combat-ready or not combat-ready) the point stands. Not that I'm anybody to tell these women whether or not they can serve anyway--but if I were in the military, I certainly wouldn't want to have the person next to me be someone who wasn't strong enough to lift me off the ground and carry me to safety if I were injured, regardless of what the set standards were.
Why am I not campaigning for something that I am strongly opposed to for both men and women? Well, for starters, maybe because I think it’s wrong…
You indicated that it would be necessary in the event of WWIII; your reaction here suggests to me that your opinion on the matter is confused. Regardless I will clarify:
If you believe anyone should be forced to register, in case the draft ever becomes necessary, why have you not fought for equality with respect to sex in who is required to register?
If you believe that registration should be abolished why have you not brought to bear the fact that this is gender based to discrimination to end the practice?
It should be noted that the "you" in these questions is, in fact, the collective feminist establishment; it is, again, ignoring an act of sexism on the basis that it principally harms men.
Um, look above at your own comments about women’s fitness for the military.
Women's fitness in combat, not the military. There are numerous non-combat roles; these do not simply vanish in a conflict situation.
Or, maybe because we have other things to worry about besides a program that most of us are generally opposed to but hasn’t been in effect for 37 years. (And, back in 1973, be it noted we were a little busy with this thing called Roe v. Wade!)
Yes, the $250,000 dollar fine for failing to register totally makes this a non-issue (even if it is almost never enforced). Ditto for immigrant men being denied citizenship if they refuse to register and are age 18 to 25. And that congressman who wanted to re-institute the draft for the war in Iraq was clearly just joking around, right?
Of course, he was egalitarian enough to suggest that women be drafted, too. Perhaps that's why it didn't go through. But men's concerns about the draft are very real.
11:24 am
I think the women on this blog had rather cut off their arm than to acknowledge that the men who lost their lives in coal mining accidents did so because they were doing what they thought they had to do to provide of their families. So many have irrational, blind hatred toward all men.
11:32 am
coal mining, dudes?
12:32 pm
Exactly. If a woman dresses up in a slut uniform (tramp stamp, spray-on jeans, tongue-ring) she is ASKING FOR IT! You can’t have it both ways! You cannot be a cock-tease and act surprised when the cock rams into you! Deal with it!
Gosh. Certainly not all men are rapists by any means, but I'm going to have to think twice about hanging out with men called David now.
1:26 pm
David, I'm sympathetic to men's rights but you come off as... well... I hope that was hyperbole. Having a tongue ring = consent to sex?
Anyway. Re: affirmative action.
I've noticed that AA has managed to get a far larger proportion women in the board room then the death professions(coal mining, garbage collector, etc.)
Haven't seen any feminist analysis of why AA is working in one instance and not the other. I have seen plenty of feminist articles saying that AA hasn't done enough to equalize gender in the boardroom.
An analysis of the 'death profession gap' in addition to the 'board room gap' would probably go a very long way in deepening our understanding of the factors behind the 'wage gap.' But I just don't see much interest in this kind of scholarship from Women's studies.
2:00 pm
I've been lurking on this discussion for quite some time and I was following the debate between David and LeftSidePositive with some interest. I found both sides were making very good points about either debate.
"Exactly. If a woman dresses up in a slut uniform (tramp stamp, spray-on jeans, tongue-ring) she is ASKING FOR IT! You can’t have it both ways! You cannot be a cock-tease and act surprised when the cock rams into you! Deal with it!"
You make it seem like women that dress in a way you find to be provocative makes them "Fair Game". You did not see Left say anything a long the lines of "If a young man accused of rape is convicted. Since he's already raped someone, he clearly deserves the same thing happen to him." Which isn't what she said at all.
I felt both sides made some very good points though, until that point.
2:33 pm
@ Erwinn
"You make it seem like women that dress in a way you find to be provocative makes them “Fair Game”."
To be fair to David, men are considered 'fair game' just for being men. As much as I find what he said distasteful, I also find it difficult to stomach that, in our society, a woman can have her protections from being raped (ie. she was asking for it) taken away based on behavior, but a man doesn't have them in the first place.
No one argues 'he was asking for it' because 'asking for it' is implied in the word 'he'.
2:33 pm
@ Erwinn
"You make it seem like women that dress in a way you find to be provocative makes them “Fair Game”."
To be fair to David, men are considered 'fair game' just for being men. As much as I find what he said distasteful, I also find it difficult to stomach that, in our society, a woman can have her protections from being raped (ie. she was asking for it) taken away based on behavior, but a man doesn't have them in the first place.
No one argues 'he was asking for it' because 'asking for it' is implied in the word 'he'.
2:41 pm
Just an additional comment.
It seems like, in this case, the 'sexism' is that a woman, by her actions, can be relegated to the status of a man in terms of sympathy and protection.
I've always found it interesting that this intra-gender ranking--in which women can be reclassified as male-like in their worthiness for social protection/sympathy--is considered 'sexist'. Even more interesting in that it's mostly policed by other women*.
* It's also policed by men, to be sure. But I find it darkly ironic when men do it. After all, they're essentially saying 'you're just as worthless/debased as a man!' Sort of similar to people of color using the word 'carpetbagger' to insult white people.
3:32 pm
This is nonsense, and no real feminist has ever said it. Conservative blogs and commentators love to misquote and flat-out make up shit like this, but keep in mind statements like that are from embittered men putting words into feminists’ mouths. Just look up Dworkin and/or MacKinnon in Snopes.com.
Duly noted. The particular quote in question originates from a book by two feminist educators who became disillusioned with the movement.
In terms of actual MacKinnon quotes, we have such gems as:
"Politically, I call it rape whenever a woman has sex and feels violated."--So, if the shlub doesn't call the next day, and that makes the woman feel like she was violated, suddenly it's rape 24 hours later?
"Men who are in prison for rape think it's the dumbest thing that ever happened... It isn't just a miscarriage of justice; they were put in jail for something very little different from what most men do most of the time and call it sex. The only difference is they got caught. That view is nonremorseful and not rehabilitative. It may also be true." --But she wouldn't want anyone to think that she believes that pretty much all sex is basically the same as rape. After all, there is the difference that most men aren't caught.
The literal words may have been a misattribution. The substantive argument really did exist.
Not true–they point out that false rapes are very, very rare, and lower than/comparable to the rates of false accusations for other crimes.
Now it's your turn to provide some links of support. Because this claim is outright false, and your supporting evidence is an educational guidebook for first responders, not an academic study. Furthermore, while the 2001 version is not readily available, the 2008 edition contains no reference to false reports of sexual assault. This is made all the more notable by the fact that it does specifically discuss false claims by children regarding abuse (and indicates that these are atypical)--this indicates that false reporting claims were seen as topical, but were specifically not included in the discussion.
Further, numerous studies have supplied much higher statistics for the false reporting rate. The FBI's figure of 8 percent (scroll down to the rape section and look for the term "unfounded") is itself much lower than an overwhelming fraction of the academic results, and yet is still higher than the 2% upon which you and many other feminists insist.
see last Thursday’s Washington City Paper!
Noted. This story is typical of the sorts of circumstances that will specifically turn off the police from investigating a claim. In order for a claim to be taken seriously, the victim must be certain a crime occurred--my personal experience with this problem occurred when my wallet was stolen. (BORING STORY REDACTED: If you care, I will share. tl, dr version: set my wallet next to me, it was taken when I wasn't looking, I talked with the police, no report when I couldn't verify that a crime was committed. Not nearly as bad as rape, but same reporting problem.)
There are additional complications for rape reporting; since rape sometimes occurs when a person is passed-out drunk (as may have occurred in this case), they are often too impaired to positively identify that a crime has occurred. This, together with the high rate of false reports, does create a problem for real victims. There are additional quirks of this case that suggest to me that the police should have investigated anyway, given the testimony of the two friends (assuming that the police were able to talk to them at the time that they made the decision not to pursue the case; the article does not make this clear). However, the general principle of not investigating without someone having some degree of certainty that a crime occurred prevents the police from needing to waste a vast quantity of resources on a small number of deranged lunatics repeatedly making false claims (or the phantom effects of drug-based hallucinations, etc.). This principle is not limited to rape.
That is pretty harrowing, but as far as I know totally unfounded. Please provide a source for this utterly ludicrous claim. I do not support, nor does anyone I know or respect support, the notion that rape is an acceptable punishment for anything. I’m a big fan of the 8th Amendment!
Professional commentators are generally far too tactful to say such things--if they weren't they would not remain professionals for very long. These sorts of comments--along with calls for castration, and sometimes even death threats--have a tendency to crop up within the anonymity of the internet, and occasionally in real-life crowds.
Literally NO ONE opposed this bill. It passed with unanimous consent, and very quickly. Why spend energy lobbying something that no one opposes anyway?
Why was it passed in 2003 and not 2002, if there would be no opposition? Why was it passed in 2003 and not 1983 if no one opposes efforts to reduce and prevent prison rape? Because of the mentality you just displayed. Sure, no one actively opposes it. But without supporters sensible laws never even reach consideration. It is disingenuous, now, to say that feminists care about prison rape when they stood by so long doing nothing to prevent it, and have taken essentially no part in the single largest piece of legislation to reduce it. You want to know why Male Studies is important? It's this. Feminists, for decades, have held themselves out as vanguards of equality between the sexes--as defenders of the needs of both men and women. Meanwhile, they ignore even the least partisan of issues facing men when action could be taken to remedy a huge problem. Action that, as you have noted, would stand largely unopposed.
This is why a Male Studies not stifled under the auspices of feminism is needed. The rhetorical arm of feminism talked itself into being thought of as a movement for equality. But the politics have never reflected those ideals.
You’re going to have to provide some data that this is actually why men kill themselves in large numbers. Without that, this reads just like you’re picking a public health issue and baselessly blaming women for it.
Well, there is the fact that divorced and separated men are two and a half times more likely to commit suicide than married men, putting them at greater risk of attempting suicide than overall for women (who are no more likely to commit suicide after divorce than before).
I already showed that women attempt suicide TWICE as frequently as men. The reason men have more completed attempts is because of the use of firearms.
This is only part of the explanation. Men are dramatically more likely to use firearms, but a quick gander at the CDC data for 2006 indicates that even without firearms men committed 11,567 non-firearm suicides (plus 14,733 firearm suicides), while women committed 4,843 non-firearm suicides (plus 2,149 firearm suicides). With firearms included, successful male suicides outnumbered successful female suicides by 3.76 to 1. Without firearms that falls to 2.39 to 1. Congratulations, you've explained half of the difference.
And “changing the circumstances” means what, exactly? Trying to force women to stay in marriages that are not working for them? Isn’t THAT a pretty major limiting of civil rights?
How about real support groups for men being divorced, instead of anger management classes? How about a more even split of joint custody? How about an actual support structure looking at the needs of male teens and college students (another high risk period for male suicide, again with greater risk of death than female suicide see these two, and compare to these two)?
Is there a reason that MEN aren’t talking about these issues before marriage? No one thinks their marriage will break up, and when it does they’re unprepared.
So that's why prenuptial agreements are so popular (well; not popular enough--but they are still reasonably common)? Because no one thinks their marriage will break up and they're all unprepared?
People do get blindsided by divorce, as they often aren't expecting it when it arrives. But given the prevalence of divorce (dare I say it--we live in a divorce culture), absolutely everyone should realize that divorce could happen to them.
Not true. The Bureau of Labor Statistics Time Use Survey indicates that it does.
Fair enough, the time use survey does indicate that it does include lawn care and car repair as household activities. It also indicates that:
--women spend an average of 0.9 hours less at work than men (per day)
--women spend an average of 0.6 hours more on household activities than men (per day)
--women spend an average of 0.8 hours more on primary child care (activities such as feeding and bathing, rather than activities done while doing something else) in households with children under the age of 6 (per day)
Apart from a few question about what fraction of that average primary childcare difference is breastfeeding, it looks like you have a real difference to fight over. A whole 42 minutes a day, on average (which makes it sound like less than it is...but talk of vast differences is certainly overstating the problem).
3:48 pm
Good lord, there's some real on the fringe lunacy in here. David, are you off your meds? If you really respect men you'd at least assume that we don't turn into rapists as the sight of a thong. Saying that a woman "deserves what she gets" implies we (men) can't fucking control ourselves (to pick just one problem w/ that statement). Maybe your degenerate band of woman-hating revolutionists just can't keep their dicks in their pants?
Can Male Studies research this? Is the right to not be assailed by trampstamps a tenet of Male Rights? We need more research on The Rapist Lurking in Every Man. Wow, that sounds like something you'd be pinning on feminazis, right? Did I just divide by zero?
3:52 pm
Erwinn, I'm not 100% percent certain you noticed, so I figured I'd point this out; David is not the only one here debating with LSP. He and I, while principally arguing for the same side do not entirely agree. People do not "ask for it" except by literally asking for it (and that involves selecting a safe word first). However, as with alcoholism, certain behaviors can act as enablers. As with alcoholism, it is not the enabler's fault that the other person behaves as they do. Still, it is unwise to act as an enabler.
To supply another useful analogy, consider smoking. Smoking increases a person's risks for lung cancer (among other diseases). In a free society, smoking is still permitted (though it can be regulated to avoid creating a public nuisance). But that doesn't make it a good idea. Behaving in a way that will increase your risk is your choice (it's not like your risk can ever be reduced to zero anyway), but recognizing that this increases your risk is not the same thing as saying we shouldn't try to solve the underlying problem.
4:15 pm
Yes, Amanda, coal mining. You feminists go on at great length about "white male privilege", as if every man with a pale skin is the CEO of a Fortune 500 company, while ignoring the fact that the vast majority of men of any skin color ain't that at all.
You compare all women to a handful of men and whine. You do not compare the average woman to the average man, and you sure as Hell don't compare any woman to the average homeless person (almost certainly a man, and very likely white), the average coal miner (virtually certain to be a man and very likely white), the average steel worker, and so forth and so on.
So rants about "white male privilege", because the underlying premise is something out of an old Eddy Murphy sketch where any white man can just walk into a bank and walk out with a million dollar loan predicated only on skin color. The underlying premise is that you ignore the fact that men are over-represented both in the upper tiers of society AND the lowest. You demand rules, regulations and laws that punish the worst off of men in the expectation that somehow Donald Trump will be affected.
We are showing that 'white male privilege' as a definition is so incomplete, it is meaningless, and that you as a feminist have nothing but contempt for the working men who keep the electricity running to your computer.
Does this help?
7:01 pm
Reading this thread has been eye-opening.
There certainly do seem to be haters on both sides of the fence (I would possibly include the author & interviewer who started this thread as their persistent theme that men have no real concerns (as men)to gripe about with the lone exceptions of pet peeves).
Following are my thoughts on the subjects that have been discussed previously.
De-constructing masculinity:
A) My major problem with this is that feminists hold that the *new & improved* formula for masculinity is to re-make men more in the image of women. This is isn't *singularly* exemplifying of the "women good, man bad" feminist mantra I don't know what is.
I do not believe that men are "broken" or that masculinity is bad (or even mostly negative) or needs reformation. However, I would definitely say that a great deal of men need help in positively channeling their masculine traits.
There are far too many men who are embracing the warrior battle-lord idea of masculinity, rather than the protector idea of masculinity. It's important to keep in mind that for every man who attacks a man woman or child there are (literally) countless others who do their best to save total strangers. There are 1 million volunteer (i.e. unpaid) firefighters in the USA. 99.8% of them are men. Can we call them firemen yet?
While feminists make such ludicrous claims that women were more adversely affected by Katrina, the Indian ocean tsunami, or the earthquake in Haiti if anybody ever bothers to look at any stock footage you will see that the vast majority of rescue workers are male. Hmmmmmm
The simple fact is there is very much *right* about masculinity. The positive sides of masculinity outweigh the negative sides by probably thousands to 1.
Saying that all men need to be remade into feminized versions of men b/c of their (admittedly)greater likelihood for violence is like me saying women need to be remade into men because they commit a strong majority of child murders and abuse. (citations: http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/newshome/6089613/mum-not-dad-more-likely-to-neglect-kids/
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm07/
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm06/index.htm)
The macho man who proudly boasts of his sexual conquests (even if some of them may have been ethically challenged) or the Marc Lepines of the world are balanced many many dozens of times over by "macho men" who rush into a burning building to save total strangers. Are doing both activities (aggression & saving strangers) strongly correlated by masculine traits? It sure seems that way. I find it ironic that feminists concentrate so hard on such a small percentage of harmful men, but ignore the huge swaths of men who exemplify the definition of "good man" who both arguably could bare the label of "macho".
B) who supports masculine deconstruction/reformation and when?
It seems to me that feminists only support masculine desconstruction/reformation when it is men inflicting restricting definitions on men. NOT when women are inflicting restrictions on men. Essentially feminists applaud men acting feminine, but their support evaporates when it actually comes to men securing female roles/jobs.
Surely, one of the singular most important things feminists could do to prove they are not just "talking the talk" about male & female roles would be to embrace shared parenting. After all, how is mom supposed to pursue a career or go back to school when she is a full-time (single) mom?
Surely, dad taking on more of the child-care duty is a *good thing*??????
Shared parenting would be the best chance for feminists to "put their money where their mouth is" when talking about "shattering pre-conceived gender roles". And yet, feminists fight shared parenting.
IN fact as far as I have been paying attention the various state branches of NOW unleash "action alerts" in the various states where possible shared parenting laws are being discussed to thwart them. WTF????????
Also, when feminists fight for more government set asides for women-owned businesses, and educational grants/programs for girls in STEM fields, why is there no corollary aid for men to go into nursing or teaching? Hmmmmmmm
I have heard of stories from friends and read articles of female employees bullying, gossiping, shaming men who try to become: nurses, dental hygenists, care-givers, or other female dominated professions.
If feminists want more women in the boardroom, why don't they fight for paternity leave equal to maternity leave (with a strong legal protection against being fired for actually taking the time off). In fact, why didn't they just lobby for gender-neutral *parental leave* in the beginning so either parent could stay home with a new baby?
It seems that in many ways, feminists are merely "talking the talk" and are not truly interested to advance multiple options for men if/when their is a corresponding possible *descrease* in options for women(regardless of the beliefs of rank and file feminists, they are definitely not interested *enough* to advocate or push through change anyway) . The only time feminists advocate for men "breaking gender norms" is for trans men to use the women's bathroom (or some other such nonsense). God forbid they never seem to advocate for any law that pushes for a naturally born man to stay home with his children.
Some feminists may be asking why they should push for such laws--why don't men push for such laws themselves. I will answer with this: because it's the right thing to do and *feminists appointed themsevles the guardians of *EQUAL RIGHTS*. Any feminist is totally allowed to say fuck men, they're on their own--but you can't also carry the "equal rights" name tag any longer. Not to any party I will be a willing participant of anyway.
C) Who's in charge and why does it matter? I noticed LSP's statements about the near virtual lock-down men seem to have on positions of power. Yeah, to some who aren't willing to dig very deep that might seem a very compelling argument.
However, there seems to be a disconnect in her thinking.
Let's take a hypothetical look at (let's say) a single family who's breadwinner is one of those men who are miners.
Who has the power in this family setup? The father who is a miner? Well he certainly does make all the money.
The fact that he may die at any time, typically means that he will carry a large life ins policy on himself (even if he dies she will stand to vastly improve her standard of living--doesn't sound like he's powerful to me).
This means he is working a dangerous job to provide his wife the rare oppportunity (in this economy) to not have to work (if she chooses). (that doesn't sound very powerful to me)
Also, if he survives to retirement, then dies of black-lung she collects his pension (once again doesn't sound like he has much power to me).
He has to work 8-12 hours a day 5-7 days a week. While he is deep underground facing possible death, she is caring for their children with a great deal more free time (and safety). Time to pursue hobbies, have friends, social events, so their baby's 1st steps, 1st words, 1st day of school, even time to have an affair is she is so inclined (are we *still* sure he has all the power?).
There is another relationship this reminds me of....it's called a slave and master. Of course this is a slavery entered into willingly by the man.
However, it seems to me that he gives up an awful lot for a short list of intangible comforts (companionship and love and if he's luck appreciation and thankfulness). What's more according to today's family court she can remove those intangible benefits (love and compassion -- from herself and the kids if she is so inclined). Maybe it isn't men who need to change, but feminists notions of power structure. Men are not women's oppressors, but their emancipators.
Are feminists really so dense as to conclude that the loving sacrifice of many many men is a patriarchal attempt to "keep women down"? (we won't even go into the fact that many women seem to leave their boring stable hard-working poindexter husbands steadfast in the knowledge that when divorcing him she can continue to get his govmt-coerced support without the you know--annoyance of actually *having him around*!)
The obvious answer is that women see how hard men work and decide whether they would be provided for or "go it on their own". The wage gape can't possibly be because men are selfless enough to offer up a "cushy life" up to women on a silver platter to prove their love could it? (despite 40 years of gender bending I have yet to see 1% of this kind of sacrifice with reversed genders).
Naaaaah! A life of leisure (or at least more leisure than mining, commercial fishing, roofing, sewage, construction, phone repair, etc...) can't POSSIBLY be influencing women's decision! And these women so obviously are "powerless" with all of their free time and ability to spend their spouses money (even after calling it quits thanks to pro-female divorce laws. She gets to call it quits but he is never freed of his "male responsibility" to provide for her)!
What about the "powers that be"? If they're all men, and a great many men seem to want to make women's lives easier, why do so many feminists seem to make the inference that male politicians mean pro-male legislation. Is that the actual case? Which leads to:
7:42 pm
D) who is oppressed and how do we measure it?
As we see with my little miner scenario, being "in charge" mainly means increased responsiblity.
Generals have responsibility to accomplish their missions and to the president. Logic would dictate that one of the things that make a great general would be making wise decisions and caution and personal bravery. That would make for a great general.
Unfortunately the army is based around soldiers (and commanders) taking orders & completeing their missions. Making wise decisions means that a soldier would frequently disobey orders. Caution would mean he would question the value of *stupid* missions against many dozens of needlessly waste lives.
Therefore, ideal general (and the one most likely promoted to general) is the soldier who *always* follows orders (even morally ambiguous ones) and *always* accomplishes the mission (no matter how low value the target & how many soldiers has to die). In this way it should be obvious through logical deduction that many generals are the biggest toadies ever.
Which brings me to politicians. Many people openly state that politicians are "for hire" and all around talk about them as being toadies. Well, toadies have a responsibility to keep their masters happy.
Who are the politicians masters? The voters. That's not always true. Their campaign contributors are also their masters.
But, while their contributors can help them *win* an election, no amount of contributions can keep them from *losing* an election if the politician earns the voters dis-favor (as in if a scandal breaks out, or the politican is too brazen with his votes for contributions attitude).
In walks women: Women are some 61% of the voting populace.
Therefore, women are the single largest demographic voting block. There are others (union workers, seniors, teachers) but none so large as women. Does that matter? Well, VAWA has a $1billion dollar price tag. Why was there VAWA even *before* a violence against children act, or violence against elderly act, or disabled? Simple: politiicans are toadies, and VAWA helped ingratiate them to their largest voting block. How else does anybody explain VAWA being reupped by a GOP POTUS, Senate *and* House?
There are 14 offices for women and girls. Men: 0. There is an Office for Violence agaisnt Women: men? nah.
There is a federal and 50 state commissions on the status of women. Men? They get Mass and the commission is unfunded.
I noticed LSP's comment about there being mostly male movers and shakers & power brokers. But to think that means defacto male privilege is just retarded. I would say nearly half of all day-time talk show hosts are men (Montel, Maury, Dr Phil). Does that mean they cater their shows to men? Of course not, they cater them to their watchers: women.
To think that this would be different for politicians has no basis in logic or *evidence*.
Besides, what LSP is really talking about when she speaks of men in positions of privilege, not oppression.
Is it possible that some men are privileged while many many men are oppressed? Well, let's take some of the metrics we use when discussing black oppression and turn them instead to men & women.
Men account for: 98% of incarcerations, 80% of all suicides, 90% of all homeless, 40% of all college graduates, 90% of victims of violent crime, 95% of all on-the-job deaths, 80% of all murders.
Men live on average 7 years less (and even if a person were to argue that this is biology of men's own bad health choices--if this were instead true of women, everybody on this board knows damn well that million or billion dollar programs would exist to increase women's lives WHATEVER THE CAUSE), $7 is spent on women's health care research to each $1 spent on men's health care research, fathers get sole custody 6% and shared 14%. Mothers get sole custody 80% and shared 14%.
As we can see when we talk about men-in-power 1)we are talking about the flipside of oppression which is privilege & has no bearing on whether the majority of men face oppression 2) having men-in-power seems to actually be working out *GREAT* for women! For men? Not so much.
It's time for feminism and those who count themselves as feminists to have a "reality check"
10:25 pm
"I already showed that women attempt suicide TWICE as frequently as men. The reason men have more completed attempts is because of the use of firearms."
This is untrue and is a common misconception. Men use lethal means to committ suicide (firearms and hanging) in 79% of their suicides. Women use lethal means in about 52% of their completed suicides. Yes, men use lethal means more often than women but it is nowhere near enough difference to impact the 4 to 1 ratio of men to women completing suicide.
The sad fact is that in the US people simply don't seem to care if men kill themselves. The US govt wrote a 200+ page volume on how to approach the problem of suicide in the US and it only mentioned men and boys once in a sidebar! This even though men and boys are 80% of the completed suicides. Boys in my state of Maryland are 86% of the suicides from ages 15-24. No one flinches. If this were girls we would have media sirens blasting and legislators writing huge checks. Since it is boys, well, no one seems to give a crap. We are living in a crazy place.
11:20 pm
Sorry, but I don't have time to address all these claims in detail, so I'm going to be more general:
First, if you men have problems with the way other privileged men are treating you, take that up with those privileged men (or the power structures that enable them). Many women and especially feminists will likely support you in those efforts. Do NOT try to claim that because you have some hardships that you automatically know what everyone else's hardships are or that they cannot possibly matter. Try to bring yourselves UP, don't try to keep others DOWN.
Second, it's juvenile and ridiculous to imagine that you can know that men being the breadwinners and policymakers works out great for women. You seriously have no fucking idea, and you're not even trying to understand what it's like from the other side.
Third, really basic tenant of feminism here and I don't know WHERE the fuck you've been for the last fifty years: staying home to take care of the family while the husband works is NOT an easy, cushy job, it is not respected, and it is fundamentally unequal. I don't know if you've noticed, but feminists really stress women being breadwinners with a full array of career options as an important means to independence, security, and equality. It's those ultra-conservative "family values" types that want women to stay home. It's just plain old condescension to imagine that men always provide well for women out of the goodness of their hearts and that we should be grateful. That is not equality. Not at all.
Fourth, please open your eyes and imagine what it's like for someone different from you. Goodness! You people don't even realize how many privileges you have that you take for granted (and if you actually were made aware of the harassment, threats, belittling, condescension and hostility that women face you'd feel much differently!), and you resent any group of people struggling for equality in their own ways. Grow up, and please try to have some empathy. For instance, I really don't know what it's like to be a minority in this country--but I am at least cognizant that other people have challenges that I don't, and I don't resent social capital being spent to address these inequalities.
Fifth, not all women are feminists. The fact that some women are dismissive of men going into traditionally female jobs DOES NOT mean that "feminists" are responsible for those attitudes. In fact, that's good-old-fashioned patriarchal thinking right there. Actual feminists LOVE the idea of men having the ability to stay home and take care of the kids, and child-rearing being a more equal enterprise, and DO in fact favor a more neutral "parental leave." (Shared parenting, btw, is often about divorce custody, and that can be a great deal more fraught, especially when it is usually the woman who has been the primary caregiver.)
Sixth, feminists (as I've mentioned before) do not object to men being "manly"--we object to men being pompous, arrogant, self-entitled, condescending bastards (like the majority of you here). When you say that our under-representation works out *great* for us, and that our having much less access to financial independence and security is because you're all soooo goodhearted, that we just aren't good enough for/interested in certain careers or lifestyles, or you just assume that just because there's an agency or a program to combat violence against women that all of a sudden *poof* those inequalities just disappear, well, you come off like total dicks. No one is trying to make you less "manly" but as long as you connote being "manly" with feeling entitled to women's sexuality, entitled to authority, and entitled to throw your weight around, entitled to be dominant, well, the people you take for granted aren't going to take kindly to it.
and,
Seventh, this really brings us to the whole problem of "Male Studies." If you insist upon "studying" how you see yourself and your "values" without regard to how others are affected by what you say and do, how these beliefs of what it means to be "male" may or may not be appreciated by those who are not male, well, you're going to have a lot of self-congratulatory nonsense like what you see here. If you people insist on believing that you always provide perfectly for your families and that only ingrates would object to being financially dependent on you, you're not going to actually learn anything about "maleness" any more than Virginians were going to learn about their history through the lens of "Confederate History Month." If you just insist on congratulating yourselves for how you are mostly firefighters, engineers, etc., you're going to completely miss the hostility that you (or your brethren--but judging from the comments here, it's you) project to women who may otherwise consider it an option to work alongside you. If "Male Studies" is going to clap itself on the back for how more men are firefighters, isn't it disingenuous and myopic to ignore the fact that when women wanted to be firefighters, they had to sue for the right to do so less than thirty years ago, and that male firefighters made DEATH THREATS to their colleagues? Can you really study the "manliness" of firefighting without the feminist implications of men being incredibly hostile to women who want to pursue this career? And then you have the fucking nerve to say "Can we call them firemen yet?"
11:22 pm
Scary-e, care to provide a link to that report?
11:23 pm
/cheer @ men for being men
11:51 pm
Oh, and since the mansplainers LOVE to discuss coalminers here, I found these little gems:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a917719458&db=all
"Although male coal miners generally were negative toward female miners as coworkers, they strongly supported women's right to coal mine jobs. In contrast, female homemakers were somewhat more favorable toward women as coal miners, but they were less likely to support women's right to hold jobs in coal mines. There is evidence that attitudes toward women coal miners are changing. Futhermore, findings suggest that existing models used to account for women's work patterns are better suited to anonymous urban settings than to tightly knit rural communites where community censure may influence women's work opportunities. Recommendations are offered for community development practitioners to help increase acceptance of women as miners."
So maybe the fact that mining communities have rigid (non-feminist) gender roles has more to do with why women aren't coalminers than feminists hating men...go figure! Hate to break it to you, but I really don't think Appalachia is at the forefront of feminist thought...
And, y'all had more than a little resistance to women being coal miners in the first place:
http://www.wvgenweb.org/wvcoal/facts.html
"On October 2, 1979, Marilyn McCusker was killed while working inside a deep coal mine in Pennsylvania. She was the first woman coal miner killed on the job. It had taken her 2 years and a sex discrimination suit in federal court to get a job as a coal miner. She was one of 144 fatalities in the mines that year. In later years, women perished in both the McClure and Wilberg disasters."
So, it's only been just over 30 years that women have even had the *right* to work in coal mines, and you just can't imagine that more of them don't.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb5553/is_199603/ai_n22309465/
and
The coal mines dug into the hills and mountains were once the domain of men, the only portal to prosperity in this land of jagged streams. Then, 20 years ago, Cosby Ann Totten laced up her steel-toed boots, slipped on a hard hat, and followed her brother beneath the earth. A mother of six with no health insurance, she earned $49.49 a day, nearly triple what the furniture factory paid her for assembling chair frames. Much has changed for Totten, who's now a grandmother, and for other women coal miners who daily faced grumbling, blackened men around the tipple. Cases of discrimination are fewer, and less time is spent plugging chewing gum into peepholes in bathrooms.
Gotta love this, dudes. Women who are interested in traditionally "male," dangerous jobs have to take legal action to secure employment (and then face tons of harassment), and then you all sit back and say, "Well, we men have it so much harder because we work in these dangerous jobs!" (that only a few decades ago you little ladies were actually forbidden from working...)
12:05 am
Oh, damn, my post with all the other links on coal miners are in moderation. But, I found one more:
On Minnesota's Iron Range, women coal miners were terrorized by the men with whom they worked to the point that some kept loaded guns in their homes and cars. Others brought knives to work to protect themselves against what had become a daily barrage of sexual assaults. Men exposed themselves to the women, pressured them for sex, fondled and grabbed them. After breaking into a woman's locker, three men ejaculated into their co-worker's clothing.
http://www.now.org/nnt/01-97/shocked.html
"Jenson first began working at the site in March 1975 and along with other women, endured a continuous stream of abhorrent behavior from male employees, including sexual harassment, abusive language, threats, stalking and intimidation. On October 5, 1984, she mailed a complaint to the Minnesota Department of Human Rights [1] outlining the problems she experienced. In retaliation, her car tires were slashed a week later. In January 1987, the state requested that Ogelbay Norton Co.[2], a Cleveland, Ohio-based part-owner of the mine, pay US$6,000 in punitive damages and $5,000 to Jenson for mental anguish, but the company refused."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jenson_v._Eveleth_Taconite_Co.
So, yeah, thanks again for telling us how great you are that you're miners and we're not. You only have yourselves to thank for that!
12:09 am
@LSP: I notice that the majority of comments that the men made here support their positions (particularly those of John D) immediately previous to yours, were respectful, and devoid of the kind of profanity that you decided to use:
"...You seriously have no fucking idea..."
"...I don’t know WHERE the fuck you’ve been for the last fifty years..."
"...we object to men being pompous, arrogant, self-entitled, condescending bastards (like the majority of you here)."
"...well, you come off like total dicks..."
"...And then you have the fucking nerve to say “Can we call them firemen yet?”..."
10:16 am
Roland, this is a blog where salty language is used regularly. The authors use "fuck" (oh, my!) 5 times, "shit" 6, in the original article, after all. Acting shocked about it just looks juvenile. Besides, a few F-bombs (which, frankly, most people over the age of 15 should be used to, I mean really!) is nowhere near as offensive as some self-entitled mansplainer declaring in his own infinite wisdom that having men in positions of power works out GREAT for women, and that men are just sooo noble for serving in positions from which they actively exclude and/or harass women, and that we women should consider ourselves totally happy & lucky to be dependent. Content is more important than tone, and offensive attitudes are going to be met with strong language.
1:24 pm
LSP, I have read your most recent comments; however, I hope you will excuse me if I address your comments in the order in which they were received. Rest assured that I do not intend to leave your most recent statements unanswered.
Care to cite any evidence for that? I know too many links will put a post in a moderation queue, but at least state the name of a study or something!
In order to defend this claim, it would first be necessary for me to determine the source of your initial assertion that the economic realities of divorce result in a decrease of 25 to 30% in standard of living for women and an increase of 10% in the standard of living for men. I have attempted to do so to the best of my ability.
This statistic appears to be sourced in this 1996 article. It was written as a correction on the grossly larger claims of a book published in the 1980s. Both the book and the study itself use data from Los Angeles in 1977 and 1978 as their basis. Alas, I do not have access to the full text of the article in order to determine if the common MRA claim that this ignores alimony and child support is accurate.
I have found no more recent study that would validate the assertion that these numbers are still accurate (or the assertion that these numbers are inaccurate). However, I would like to suggest that the economic realities of divorce may not be the same as the were three decades ago. It is my hope that Male Studies will supply new literature on this subject.
If you know of another study, or some means by which I can access the full text of the original (legally and freely), I am certainly open to additional data being brought into this discussion.
This is insane and too stereotypical to possibly take seriously. A divorce settlement entitles a party to a specific amount of money, whether they spend it irresponsibly or not.
Except that the justification for uneven custody and the attendant child support is that this is supposed to benefit children. Frivolous spending, particularly of monies given for this purpose, is to their detriment. In the event that one parent--either parent--is highly fiscally irresponsible how can a system purportedly designed to benefit (or, at any rate, minimize the negative effects on) children, in good conscience, put that parent in charge of maintaining the bulk of the children's finances?
Which is not to say that there are not fiscally responsible women, or fiscally irresponsible men. But this question of largely no concern to existing custody issues.
Also, differences in spending habits can have a lot to do with who does household purchases and groceries, as an April 9th piece in Salon’s Broadsheet discussed.
If you seriously believe that differences in intra-household spending habits account for the entirety of gender differences in saving and spending, then I suggest you poke around the data available from the consumer expenditure survey regarding the spending habits of single men and women living alone. Not all of it is indicative of men being more fiscally responsible than women (single men living alone spend vastly more on vehicles than single women do--and above certain income thresholds even own more than one car on average), nor indeed are the categories in which single women spend more necessarily unjustified (single women spend more on household cleaning supplies, for instance). However, you will find that men put a larger fraction of their incomes toward pensions/social security/retirement plans; in general they have a higher savings rate.
Remember, however, that this is an average, and should never be used to draw conclusions about particular people. Also, if there are any gender differences that can be attributed almost entirely to culture rather than biology, spending habits certainly heads up the list (apart from differences in expenditures for food and certain personal hygiene products).
Dude, at least do a wikipedia search before you make these claims. Alimony dates back way before even the 19th century, and thus way before feminism.
Dude, if you're going to tell me to check wikipedia, you might want to check it yourself. Even the understanding of alimonia from the Ecclisiastical Courts was still fundamentally about differences in earning potential, and existed as a protection for a wronged wife so that she would still be cared for by a cheating husband (as she would have been had she married a non-cheating husband--which would, at that point, have been thought of as essentially the limit of her earning potential).
Alimony is not, and never has been, about assets. Postmarital division of assets is about assets. Alimony is about income, and existed as a responsibility of a man to sustain a spouse whom he had cheated. Which brings us to where feminists enter the picture. With the introduction of no-fault divorce, the justification for alimony (that a man who cheats or abandons still has a responsibility to his wife) falls by the wayside. After all, the divorce is no one's fault. But feminists introducing no-fault divorce fight to keep alimony (even lifetime alimony) tooth and nail. After all, restitution is needed for a spouse's lost earning potential...even though the divorce is no one's fault.
In a significant sense this is the same as the original argument recognizing the need for restitution to a wronged spouse (whether earning potential is looked at in terms of the possibility of marrying someone else who would still be taking care of the woman, or lost chances at experience and career advancement). Except it is being applied even in cases where the spouse was not wronged. For that it is entirely reasonable to blame feminist political groups.
OK, I’m lost–WHAT is the gender claim here?!
Among the positive claims made about whole language, as introduced in the 1980s, were the comparative advances made by girls over boys under whole-language instruction. In fact, both genders are harmed by the use of whole-language rather than phonics, but boys are harmed significantly more. (See, for instance, this reference briefly touching upon the subject--not academically. See this for an example of a feminist asserting the importance of the whole language approach due to its comparative advantage for girls. She also asserts that it shows improvements for both genders; this is false. See the results of the 1998 National Research Council and the 2000 National Reading Panel for more details.)
Are you sure they weren’t saying things like, “Girls are the sexual gatekeepers” or “Girls are more interested in commitment than sex” or “Girls are more sexually responsible and boys always want it”? Because feminists find those attitudes pretty offensive, too! These are traditional gender roles at work, not feminism! You have the patriarchy to thank for those attitudes, and it does NOT mean that women are revered as “perfect”–it means that if we’re not perfect (which no one is!), we’re shamed for it, treated as abnormal, and told we’re “asking for it.”
No. The high school teacher literally used the word superior. The elementary school teacher said better. The middle school teacher said smarter, with the same general implication of general superiority. The context surrounding these circumstances made this only slightly less offensive.
Please cite some sources. Anything. Really.
I am not an educational expert, but any of the many circumstances where focus is placed on a gender gap and not on absolute achievement, there is cause for concern. Similarly, any time we let existing political ideology get in the way of actually helping people we have gone astray. Consider my reference to sex-segregated schooling. Significant amounts of research (link to a review thereof) suggest that in sex-segregated learning environments, girls achieve similar or slightly better learning outcomes, while boys achieve significantly better learning outcomes. Even, in a feminist critique of this research throwing out the positive effects for white men, improvement is found. Yet feminist organizations stand opposed to sex-segregated schooling (see this).
When MRAs complain that feminists are working directly against the interests of boys and men, they are not pulling this idea out of thin air.
And I think every single parliamentarian and church official was male! One person doesn’t make everything okay…I didn’t cite one person. I cited male dominance in every single branch of government. The likelihood of the makeup of the current House & Senate occurring by chance is 9.49×10^-58. In other words, infinitesimal.
If all the parliamentarians and church officials answered to the queen, does that really matter? (Remember, the king or queen of England is the leader of the church of England, so those church officials were indeed answering--directly or through levels of management--to her...the parliamentarian's had more say thanks to the Magna Carta, but still.)
Also, your assertion of probability assumes equal populations interested in running for political office and an equal distribution of ability (note here that the relevant ability is not the ability to govern but the ability to get elected). Neither of these assertions is particularly well-founded.
Like I’ve said multiple times, gender is not the ONLY means of oppression, and class & poverty are huge factors (but, remember that those male rulers had the rights to sleep with their female serfs willing or not before you complain too much! See Figaro, Marriage of)
And they had the "right" to murder either of them. History contains vastly larger differences in rights and quality of life with respect to social class than it does with respect to gender. There were women who voted in the 17th century in what later became the US--being white landowners they had that right, while the poor and blacks did not (look up Margaret Brent and Deborah Moody). Of course, you wouldn't know it from a feminist read of history.
Were there inequalities and injustices? Yes. Did women, in general not have the right to vote? Yes, and they didn't, in general, get it until after the vote was extended to all men. But a government not composed of women is not necessarily acting against the interests of women, and is not necessarily acting in the interests of men.
Yeah. When people hold up a healthcare bill expressly for the purpose of denying you a legal medical procedure, then we’ll talk.
Tell me, are other voluntary surgeries covered under the bill? Ignoring the moral question for the moment, do you really think that voluntary surgeries should, in general, be required to be covered by all health insurance programs? Do you want to be paying for someone else's nose job?
In cases where the mother's life is in danger, it's a life-saving medical procedure and should be covered in order to be available as an option. In other cases (including extremely justifiable cases such as rape and incest) a consistent read of the existing feminist argument treats this the same way it treats any other elective medical procedure.
Do I think this was held up for that reason? No, I'm not that naive. But do you think it would have been appropriate to insist that all health insurance programs cover, say, penis enlargement? (I have no idea if such a surgery exists, and doubt I could easily determine this via the internet given the amount of spam I'd find trying, so just suppose that it did.)
1:30 pm
I am again guilty of failure to fully check my own spelling and grammar; "Ecclisiastical" is properly spelled "Ecclesiastical".
2:06 pm
LeftSidePositive:
"If you insist upon “studying” how you see yourself and your “values” without regard to how others are affected by what you say and do, how these beliefs of what it means to be “male” may or may not be appreciated by those who are not male, well, you’re going to have a lot of self-congratulatory nonsense like what you see here."
Does this apply to feminists in terms of being 'female'? It seems like feminists take pride in ridding themselves of male influences and not considering the male point of view when analyzing the nature of femininity in society. Which, as you say, does lead to a lot of self-congratulatory nonsense.
2:17 pm
In fact, worse then 'self congratulatory nonsense' you get disgusting bigotry about men like: 'all men benefit from rape' and 'men are complicit in creating a "rape culture" that encourages rape.'
The idea that anyone could say something like 'all men benefit from rape' leaves me speechless.
Male studies is needed just to balance out this crap.
3:14 pm
I should clarify, "But this question of largely no concern to existing custody issues." My intended reading of this sentence was, roughly:
But this is question (of which parent is more fiscally responsible) is considered largely of no concern for existing custody issues.
7:59 pm
Responding to LSP's comment # 150:
A) "First, if you men have problems with the way other privileged men are treating you, take that up with those privileged men (or the power structures that enable them). Many women and especially feminists will likely support you in those efforts."
[ In other words having run out of rebuttals and conceding that maybe men actually do face a significant amount of societal oppression, your mature (and *quite* egalitarian!) response is to tell men: fuck you, you're on your own buddy!
That's quite an interesting remark considering feminists consider themselves the steadfast guardians of justice and equality for women *AND MEN* and profess to be concerned about *all oppression*. ]
B) "Second, it’s juvenile and ridiculous to imagine that you can know that men being the breadwinners and policymakers works out great for women. You seriously have no fucking idea, and you’re not even trying to understand what it’s like from the other side."
[ Your call for empathy and understanding is so touching considering your comment A) in which you profess to know whether or not most men are oppressed (with little or no research on the subject), and when conceding that it's likely many are, you tell them to fuck off and to advocate their own way out of oppression.
Simultaneously calling for empathy for women's issues while telling men to fuck off (even if a good deal of men are oppressed) sure is a neat trick--but I've ceased being surprised by feminists. ]
C) "staying home to take care of the family while the husband works is NOT an easy, cushy job, it is not respected, and it is fundamentally unequal"
[ One of the reasons why Glenn Sacks got into the father's rights movement is b/c he was a stay at home dad for about 4 years and he realized (though he wouldn't state it quite so bluntly) that the "housework & child-care is misery & oppression" is total bunk.
1. being a stay at home parent may not be easy, but it is *easier* then almost all paid work, and
2. it is definitely *much* more fulfilling b/c you get to spend time with your own kids.
3. As far as it being unequal--you're proven quite resoundingly your total unwillingness in the face of cold hard logic that you're *only* willing to look at the inequality from the woman's side, never from the man's side.
4. Could this have something to do with why so many women choose it?????? Naaaaahhh. ]
D) "I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but feminists really stress women being breadwinners with a full array of career options as an important means to independence, security, and equality"
[ Unless the couple is divorced then feminists fight tooth and nail for mom to be burdened with the majority of child-care restricting her ability to go to school or pursue a career. Can't have mommy getting lower child support! All of a sudden feminists like dependence on me! A hypocrisy which I noticed you never addressed.]
E) "Fourth, please open your eyes and imagine what it’s like for someone different from you. Grow up, and please try to have some empathy. "
[ ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha HA HA HA HA ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha HA HA HA HA ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha HA HA HA HA, OHMIGOD CAN'T BREATHE! Ever hear of the word hypocrite? ]
F)" The fact that some women are dismissive of men going into traditionally female jobs DOES NOT mean that “feminists” are responsible for those attitudes."
[ Responsible? No. But feminists constantly decree themselves to be the honorable, *unimpeachable* steadfast guardians of justice and equality for women *AND MEN*.
By standing idly by and doing nothing to help your brothers fight to break gender roles, FEMINISTS NO LONGER get to call themselves guardians of equality. Once again I have *never* seen feminists oppose women who shame men for being "unmanly"--only when they are shamed by other men. Apparently, women as "bad guy" is the major no-no of feminism.
Feminists (and *you especially*) have proven quite handily that feminism is nothing more than an advocacy group for women's rights and women's privilege.
It is no different than the way in which big tobacco advocates for what benefits itself, or big oil advocates for what benefits itself.
Quite frankly you get the John D golf clap award for hypocrisy. I couldn't have made a poorer showing of what a feminist is then you have.
If there is any indication of why male studies is needed, you just provided it on a silver platter. ]
8:08 pm
Under comment D) the second to last sentence should have been:
All of a sudden feminists like dependence on men!
Not "dependence on me"
lol
1:18 am
Male Studies will not only study sexual politics, but sexuality itself. Women are hypergamous; men are polygamous. Men that do not have jobs or money lead lives of sexual scarcity. If a woman wants a man all she has to do is show up. Can she lift her head up and down? She can have a man. Can she turn it from side to side? She can have a man. A man has to accumulate wealth and resources. This is completely different from females. Don't women think this is worthy of study? Of course not, they want men kept in the dark.
Male Studies will be revolutionary in the sense it will allow men to choose roles more fitting to their needs. Our society can best be described as one of soft polygamy. Go to a Doctor's office and look around. What do you see? Mostly women: nurses, nurse's aids and office assistants. Soft polygamy. This is the Doctor's 'virtual harem'. The truth is, women are hypergamous, and would share a Doctor between several women than be monogamous with one man. Feminism never studies sexuality, because feminism is a political lobby group dedicated to female supremacy.
Women use sex as way of rewarding and punishing male behavior. If a man doesn't have work, he gets no sex. If a man is successful, he is rewarded with a bounty of sex. Feminism never discusses these truths, because feminism is a political lobby group, dedicated to female supremacy.
2:14 am
@leftside About your stories on the coal miners you just further proved that the feminists don't care to make the coal mining industry equally represented by males and females. Or they would be demanding changes. There is no excuse for this feminist hypocrisy.
However you finding some stories doesn't really show anything. I would need something current and an actual study to be convinced.
There are tons more risky and necessary jobs and women don't take them nor do feminists care.
1:09 pm
@LSP
LSP said "Scary-e, care to provide a link to that report?"
Not sure which report you want so here are links to both. The first is a compilation of suicide stats on the suicide.org site:
http://www.suicide.org/suicide-statistics.html
Look towards the bottom of the page for the "Suicide methods by gender" table. I actually missed the exact number by a smidge. Lethal means of hanging and firearms for men was about 80% and for women was about 51%. I think I said 79 and 52. ooops. Still you get the idea that the percentage is not so dissimilar and cannot be used to account for the dramatic difference in completed suicides.
The other report is titled: "NATIONAL STRATEGY FOR SUICIDE PREVENTION: GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR ACTION" and was published by U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES in 2001. I think it is the latest version of the nationsl strategy and is in a pdf file. Load it and then search the file for instances of "men" and see what you come up with. LOL It is absolutely unbelievable that a 200+ page document about the national strategy for the prevention of suicide should not focus AT ALL on men and boys. Totally unreal. Boys and men are 80% of the completed suicides and they don't even rate more than a sidebar on page 99? Our government misandry in action. Women and children first right? Fock sake.
http://download.ncadi.samhsa.gov/ken/pdf/SMA01-3517/SMA01-3517.pdf
11:50 pm
It's simple.
All the things that men face--circumcision, greater risk of suicide, homicide, assault, drug abuse, homelessness, shorter life span, more workplace fatalities and injuries, forced to register for the draft, no services for domestic violence, rape, etc., far less health care funding, declining school performance--if women faced them there would be a public outcry(and was, in some cases).
But there is no public outcry because men are supposed to help themselves. That's their gender role, being self-reliant. And if they can't help themselves they become objects of contempt and unworthy of help. A catch-22.
Our cultural attitude that men should be ultra-self reliant also effects how people view women, namely as helpless and dependent. We've gone as far as we can helping women by convincing them that they are helpless as women(oppressed in other words).
That's why Male Studies is needed.
6:49 am
Great post Typhonblue. Here is a short quote from Peter Marin that hammers away at the same point:
"To put it simply: men are neither supposed nor allowed to be dependent. They are expected to take care of others and themselves. And when they cannot or will not do it, then the assumption at the heart of the culture is that they are somehow less than men and therefore unworthy of help. An irony asserts itself: by being in need of help, men forfeit the right to it."
This thread exposes all of the monotonous and robotic voicings of this cultural norm. This is yet another reason that we desparately need male studies.
9:23 am
Typhon:
There is a great quote (unfortunately I don't remember who said it) that goes:
A woman's greatest strength lies in her appearance of weakness.
A Man's greatest weakness lies in his appearance of strength.
Notice LSP's interesting one-two punch that women's rights are everybody's business, but men's rights definitely isn't her business.
And she didn't even realize her hypocrisy when she's screeching that we all need to learn to empathize, while *simultaneously* yelling: men--fuck off, advocate your own way out of oppression.
Quite an interesting comment considering that women have received billions upon billions of government largess (and 100's of millions in private & corp donations too). Not to mention female-only laws for business & educational grants greatly disproportionate healthcare research etc....
Quite frankly, feminists and women should get down on their knees and thank the fact that the vast majority of men are not so close-minded and self-absorbed as left-side-positive or they still wouldn't have the right to vote.
The last irony is that the ranks of MRA's are nearly 50% female (the ranks of politically active feminist groups are what? 2% men--when they're even *allowed* in). Good women who are *truly* concerned about justice for all who see the malicious massacre of men's civil rights and are willing to stand up for what is right.
Now that men have helped everybody else, it is time to turn to our brothers and help them. With the help of courageous women like you.
Our gender hegemony (and feminists lack of it) should be a clue to what everybody is *really* about.
6:56 pm
Felidaeus, it is only after the “mancession” that women are employed in even roughly comparable numbers to men–according to the New York Times, 49.83% of the workforce is currently female. Obviously, I’d prefer workplace parity to come from women getting jobs rather than men losing them, but the fact is that women are not quite even at equality at the moment, and you’re acting oppressed and wanting to turn back the clock already!
Except that a large part of the reason that there were differences in the number of men and women employed was the difference in the number of men and women seeking employment (as noted by the previously closely matching unemployment rates between men and women). Now the number of men and women who are employed is roughly at parity, but the number seeking employment still is not--leading to a significant gender differential in the unemployment rate. Calling this equality is not exactly accurate.
Actually, I’m a medical student so I hear about prostate cancer rather a lot. The vast majority of cases are not life-limiting, and the medical community is addressing some significant morbidity (e.g. impotence) from over-treatment.
While it is true that breast cancer has a somewhat earlier average age of onset than prostate cancer, and is more likely to be fatal (see the CDC on breast cancer and on prostate cancer), it enjoys double the federal research budget, significant private research funding, and a large awareness effort. Of these the first two are of some concern (though I expect some funding disparity), but given the greater incidence rate of prostate cancer, and importance of diagnosis in the earlier stages of a cancer, I'm left asking why no one hears anything about a prostate cancer awareness month (September, the month currently set aside for this purpose, is shared with Childhood Cancer Month, Health Literacy Month, Ovarian Cancer Month, Gynecological Cancer Month, and Leukemia and Lymphoma Awareness Month...breast cancer has October all to itself, and gets a lot more press for it--and August has no cancers associated with it at all). Given that tens of thousands of lives are lost each year to this disease, this complaint is less petulant than it may seem from my rendition of it.
As regards the morbidity issue, I certainly am not a medical expert. However, my understanding of the current state of medical knowledge on the matter is that the issues of morbidity under discussion involve treatment of tumors that may not have been particularly aggressive or life threatening. In particular, I know of no linkage between any sort of morbidity problem and regular rectal examination.
Regardless, the lack of public education on this issue is, quite frankly, appalling.
I don’t suppose feeling unwelcome in educational and workplace environments has anything to do with women’s reluctance to go into these careers?! Look at your attitude and tell me you’re surprised that women aren’t beating down the door to be in the same field with you!
Allow me to reflect this question back at you. If 60% of college enrollment is women, doesn't your argument suggest that this means that colleges are making men feel unwelcome?
-----------------------
As a side note, it appears that my links for suicide data included session IDs for use of the WISQARS database run by the CDC. To access the same data, follow the WISQARS link, select the gender you are interested in, select age ranges, click the lower submit button. Then select suicide in order to get a breakdown by suicide method.
First, if you men have problems with the way other privileged men are treating you, take that up with those privileged men (or the power structures that enable them). Many women and especially feminists will likely support you in those efforts. Do NOT try to claim that because you have some hardships that you automatically know what everyone else’s hardships are or that they cannot possibly matter. Try to bring yourselves UP, don’t try to keep others DOWN.
There are several problems with this. First, it isn't just "privileged men" that we have a problem with; it's also privileged women. Second, as is abundantly clear from the coverage Male Studies has received here and elsewhere, feminists have little interest in supporting our efforts. Third, it seems a significant stretch to claim that an effort to study the male as male has anything to do with claiming to know anyone else's hardships--when was anyone else mentioned, except to say that this will occur outside of the auspices of feminism?
Fourth, there are some problems that are zero sum...if you go from unequal custody arrangements to equal custody arrangements, someone has lost and someone has gained. It is precisely because of those issues that feminism has fought to suppress male studies.
Second, it’s juvenile and ridiculous to imagine that you can know that men being the breadwinners and policymakers works out great for women. You seriously have no fucking idea, and you’re not even trying to understand what it’s like from the other side.
Fortunately, we aren't imagining (or asserting) this. The claim is not that everything is perfect and peachy, it's that having a government composed of men doesn't guarantee that the interests of women won't be looked out for or that the interest of men will.
Feminists have claimed that they are a movement for equity, equality, and freedom for both sexes. Yet this feminism, equity feminism, isn't actually the ideology that drives the principle feminist political organizations. Instead, while leaning upon the rhetoric of equity feminism and the presumption of fairness it implies, organizations such as NOW, the AAUW, and the Women's Bar Association pursue a political agenda of gender feminism. After decades of neglect, apart from a handful of anti-feminists and some gender feminists who became disillusioned with the movement, the internet has finally brought together these disparate forces to come to the defense of boys and men.
We are not willfully trying to ignore the problems faced by women and girls. But an extraordinarily powerful advocacy for their interests already exists.
Third, really basic tenant of feminism here and I don’t know WHERE the fuck you’ve been for the last fifty years: staying home to take care of the family while the husband works is NOT an easy, cushy job, it is not respected, and it is fundamentally unequal.
I'm not really disputing any of this. Although I will note that it is easier than it was in the days before modern appliances (including everything from the washing machine to the induction stove, to the roomba). And it was respected more before feminism asserted that everyone ought to have a career.
It is, however, unequal. It is a choice still largely available only to women despite feminism's promises to free men from their societal responsibility to the workplace. It slows or prevents the career advancement of one spouse, in return for which they get much greater access to their children. It saddles one spouse with a disproportionate fraction of certain menial tasks that are often largely taken for granted (such as household cleaning), while failing to expose that spouse to the difficulties and menial tasks associated with the other spouse's job.
I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but feminists really stress women being breadwinners with a full array of career options as an important means to independence, security, and equality.
This gets to the heart of the issue. Feminists, politically, are interested in giving women more options, by whatever means necessary. This means freeing them from existing gender roles, getting them out of tasks they consider menial. Yet, despite promising to also free men from the tasks they found undesirable, they have not delivered.
Why?
If women don't do the menial tasks, the undesirable tasks, the deadly tasks, etc., and men don't do the menial tasks, the undesirable tasks, or the deadly tasks, then no one is left to do any of that work. Yet society needs these workers to function. So feminism, politically, sold out men to protect the interests of its core constituency--women. Sure it fought to give women the choice to do these things. That was the whole point--to give women more choices. But it never took an interest in fighting for any sort of equality, except where it would free up women from what they didn't want to do, or make space for them for what they did want to do--by making men take over for the less desirable work if it couldn't be automated, and forcing men out of the more desirable work by whatever means necessary.
It’s those ultra-conservative “family values” types that want women to stay home. It’s just plain old condescension to imagine that men always provide well for women out of the goodness of their hearts and that we should be grateful. That is not equality. Not at all.
Perhaps, but personal experience and divorce statistics suggest to me that providing for a woman out of the goodness of one's heart isn't likely to result in the woman being grateful either.
I instead recommend learning some psychology and working to actually make her feel good directly. Given the risks and effort involved, it may not be worth it, and your mileage will almost certainly vary.
Fourth, please open your eyes and imagine what it’s like for someone different from you. Goodness! You people don’t even realize how many privileges you have that you take for granted (and if you actually were made aware of the harassment, threats, belittling, condescension and hostility that women face you’d feel much differently!), and you resent any group of people struggling for equality in their own ways. Grow up, and please try to have some empathy. For instance, I really don’t know what it’s like to be a minority in this country–but I am at least cognizant that other people have challenges that I don’t, and I don’t resent social capital being spent to address these inequalities.
The irony in you making this statement in response to a group trying to address problems faced by a minority (men...we are outnumbered by women, you know) is staggering. We are not here to minimize the problems faced by various races, those of any particular sexual orientation, gender identity, or economic status. Rather we are interested in shedding light on serious problems faced by a group ill-served by the existing framework of safeguards and corrections against injustice.
Fifth, not all women are feminists. The fact that some women are dismissive of men going into traditionally female jobs DOES NOT mean that “feminists” are responsible for those attitudes. In fact, that’s good-old-fashioned patriarchal thinking right there. Actual feminists LOVE the idea of men having the ability to stay home and take care of the kids, and child-rearing being a more equal enterprise, and DO in fact favor a more neutral “parental leave.”
Feminism has done a great deal to chastise and shame men who behave against its ideals of equality as much as possible. Where is the feminist outrage over women not meeting those same ideals of equality of behavior?
Regarding parental leave, as noted above, feminism--politically--has been about giving women choices, even if it means forcing new restrictions on men. Neutral "parental leave" isn't about giving men more options, it's about taking them away by forcing them to take parental leave (as currently occurs in Sweden) whether they want it or not (to be fair, both parents have minimums for the parental leave they must take...but women were overwhelmingly already taking more than the current minimum before it was put into place).
(Shared parenting, btw, is often about divorce custody, and that can be a great deal more fraught, especially when it is usually the woman who has been the primary caregiver.)
It is usually the woman who has been the primary caregiver. And the woman still generally gets custody even when she wasn't (though it is then generally shared). Laws that would make 50-50 custody splits the default have been vehemently opposed by feminist organizations; in particular NOW. Your remark has added little to the issue.
Sixth, feminists (as I’ve mentioned before) do not object to men being “manly”–we object to men being pompous, arrogant, self-entitled, condescending bastards (like the majority of you here).
You seem to have no problem with women behaving that way, however.
That said, name-calling isn't likely to get us anywhere.
When you say that our under-representation works out *great* for us, and that our having much less access to financial independence and security is because you’re all soooo goodhearted, that we just aren’t good enough for/interested in certain careers or lifestyles, or you just assume that just because there’s an agency or a program to combat violence against women that all of a sudden *poof* those inequalities just disappear, well, you come off like total dicks.
Tell me, if--through some sort of miracle--all of congress and the presidency were replaced by women, would that suddenly make men an oppressed group? How long after that instant would men become an oppressed group?
Who is doing the representing matters less than the what that they represent. Men can oppress men. Women can oppress women. Little furry creatures from alpha Centauri can oppress little furry creatures from Alpha Centauri.
No one is trying to make you less “manly”
Except the companies using BPA in their plastics.
but as long as you connote being “manly” with feeling entitled to women’s sexuality, entitled to authority, and entitled to throw your weight around, entitled to be dominant, well, the people you take for granted aren’t going to take kindly to it.
How about being entitled to a presumption of innocence when accused of a crime, an equal opportunity to succeed, and freedom of speech and the press?
Seventh, this really brings us to the whole problem of “Male Studies.” If you insist upon “studying” how you see yourself and your “values” without regard to how others are affected by what you say and do, how these beliefs of what it means to be “male” may or may not be appreciated by those who are not male, well, you’re going to have a lot of self-congratulatory nonsense like what you see here.
You think the discussion of male suicide is self-congratulatory? Go us, we're better at killing ourselves?
If you people insist on believing that you always provide perfectly for your families and that only ingrates would object to being financially dependent on you, you’re not going to actually learn anything about “maleness” any more than Virginians were going to learn about their history through the lens of “Confederate History Month.”
You'd prefer that those Virginians blot out all reference to that period of their history, as if it never happened? As if that would make them more aware of their past?
A significant point to this exercise is to examine the effects of the assumption that a man should provide for his family without demonizing him as an incarnate of evil for doing so. It's not a foregone conclusion that this will necessarily be seen as a plus any more than that it will be seen as a minus.
If you just insist on congratulating yourselves for how you are mostly firefighters, engineers, etc., you’re going to completely miss the hostility that you (or your brethren–but judging from the comments here, it’s you) project to women who may otherwise consider it an option to work alongside you.
And when feminists insist on turning themselves into perpetual victims of an intangible patriarchy they appear to completely miss the hostile bile they are spewing upon everyone around them. Arrogance and blindness to the big picture are real issues, but avoiding them by never looking at a subject in the first place is not a serious solution.
If “Male Studies” is going to clap itself on the back for how more men are firefighters, isn’t it disingenuous and myopic to ignore the fact that when women wanted to be firefighters, they had to sue for the right to do so less than thirty years ago, and that male firefighters made DEATH THREATS to their colleagues?
Yes and no. It is disingenuous to simultaneously assert that women are not qualified for combat and then complain about men making up the majority of combat deaths. Either individual position, however, is self-consistent.
A similar tack can be taken for any other particular work environment.
My personal position sets combat aside as an unusual case; being a fight against an opposing human force rather than a fight against nature means that optimizing the strength of the unit is critical to collective success, since an optimization you forego may be acted upon by the enemy in order to gain advantage. A fight against nature, such as mining coal or another dangerous job, has essentially fixed requirements for capability and should be open to anyone who meets them. Inequalities in employment in dangerous professions are then fair game to criticize as an inequality of society--except for combat.
Can you really study the “manliness” of firefighting without the feminist implications of men being incredibly hostile to women who want to pursue this career?
Yes and no. Unique cultures exist amongst these people that one can study anthropologically. Such a study would be incomplete without looking at its relation to the greater culture. It could well be complete without any direct reference to the treatment of women.
And then you have the fucking nerve to say “Can we call them firemen yet?”
I didn't understand why feminists cared enough about this issue to want to change it, and I don't understand his position of caring enough about this issue to want to change it back. As far as I'm concerned, this is an inanity for both sides.
That said, you are entitled to your own experiences.
That said, he's entitled to free speech.
Oh, and since the mansplainers LOVE to discuss coalminers here, I found these little gems:
[...] (redacted)
This entire issue reiterates my claim above. Feminism, politically, is interested in taking action to increase women's choices--including the option to take hazard pay as a coal miner. But when it comes time to look at the other side of the coin--picking up half the tab of the dangerous and undesirable jobs of society--feminism shrinks its voice to a whisper at best.
So maybe the fact that mining communities have rigid (non-feminist) gender roles has more to do with why women aren’t coalminers than feminists hating men…go figure! Hate to break it to you, but I really don’t think Appalachia is at the forefront of feminist thought…
This bit deserves particular examination, as it offers some useful insights. (Obviously, as I have previously noted, I cannot speak for the experience of others. But I can usefully hypothesize.)
At first, before any women were working in the mines, men opposed it. Like any change, it was feared, and for the usual reasons: the men were worried that it would increase their own risks, since they weren't sure that the women could keep up or would be safe to have down there.
Fast forward a little while, and when having women there doesn't seem to cause any major catastrophes, the guys are suddenly all pretty much fine with it. Maybe a handful of them complain about the women taking away some of the work from the men, but really, it's not so bad having them around.
The women in town, however, see this as a serious threat. 'If those women can work in the mine,' they think to themselves, 'How long until someone tries to send me into that hellhole? There's no way I'm going down there...'
So yes, these women don't identify with feminists--seeing them as an assault on their way of life (with which they are rather happy). And they develop a negative attitude towards the few women coal miners, since it shifts the expectations for their own behavior. But neither of those facts causes them to cease to exist.
And, if the buck stopped there for this story, there wouldn't be a real problem. There'd be more or less two Americas--the gender roles America, and the no gender roles America. There might be some issues with people getting back and forth between them, but mostly things would be okay.
This is as far as we go with the coal miners and those immediately around them; this general narrative isn't perfect, but hopefully you can see how it matches up with what you've written. If you have a different interpretation, I'm open to it.
Of course, our saga itself does not actually end there. Along comes our next character, Princess, who is the villain of this narrative. Princess looks at gender roles America and says, 'Awwww, how sweet, there's love, and romance, and kids, and marriage, and having a guy who's strong and manly and willing to go to the ends of the Earth to make you happy.' And then she looks at no gender roles America and says, 'Oh, SWEET! I can get a free leg up in school and college and getting a job! I can get rich without having to work at it, and do whatever the fuck I want without consequences!' Princess is not an equity feminist; she doesn't believe in the ideal of equality, since to do so would inconvenience her. She does, however, believe in keeping the freedom from gender restrictions--she just thinks that she should get these things because she is inherently special. She may identify as a gender feminist (she's certainly interested in any additional help that feminists might secure for her), or she may not (since the label might be inconvenient to her). Either way, she expects to get all the perks of both worlds--affirmative action in school and at work, and a magical Prince Charming who makes more money than her, is more powerful than her, meets the rest of her laundry list of demands, and bends himself totally to her will.
Men aren't kept in their gender role by equity feminists. The ones kept in those roles by women who maintain their own original roles tend not to mind so much either. The problem lies in Princess, who keeps men in their roles while asserting as much freedom as possible for herself (an never being satisfied).
Feminism, as a political movement, hasn't confronted Princess. Unless forced to do so by outside pressure, it never will confront Princess either; Princess is a sizable chunk of its constituency. This is why an effort to confront Princess and her effect on gender relations must come from outside of feminism--the existing political tools are set up to defend Princess, not attack her. How, exactly, the attack on Princess will look or work, I do not know. But this is a step in that direction.
7:10 pm
(Its should be noted that Princess' observations of both Americas are delusional.)
8:14 pm
Re: the post by Arbitrary (#170):
I would define that post as the quintessential example of a "sexist beatdown." Kudos, Arbitrary.
10:30 pm
A friend with a PhD in literature once told me that I give others too much credit for IQ and wisdom. It's been decades since and I am sure he is correct.
As a veteran with a 100 percent disability who grew up with a twin sister that was not drafted into the military it amazes me to see young women today suggesting men never pay a price for gender, not like her gender whose great, great, great grandmother didn't get to vote. Well, your mom's voted and sent males too young to vote to die in wars that the young men barely understood. I could cite many expamples of sexism at least equal to "girls didn't get to take shop class" ... but stupid people never listen to other opinons so what's the point? Men die everyday in work and war protecting or providing for families and in 40 years I have not ONCE heard feminist give men credit for that. Some men and women respect themselves and the other gender and some don't. Those that don't never listen, they just present tired arguments based on bullshit.
SD