Men's rights/issues thread- Grab 'em right by the willy

[Chaldanya]

9 minutes ago, Mikael said:

This took an unsurprising turn.. 

One thing I've been thinking about recently that's an actual men's rights issue, and not just stuff men shouldn't do, is what we should do to help boys in school. I know I talked earlier about attitude, but I doubt that's going to change any time soon. All I've got really is that we should show boys from the pre school years and forward that we expect them to behave as well as the girls, but also that we believe that they can perform as well. Right now I don't think either of those criteria are met on a large scale.

This is hitting home for me right now. I've got a 4 year old who starts school in September. I recently went to a literacy workshop about how to support him in reading/writing. The workshop leader said that boys tend to have a harder time writing because of not believing that they can.  All I can do as a mother is counteract as much as possible the societal pressures and get him to behave well and let him know that he is fully capable of writing...  But to address it on a society wide-scale will take a paradigm shift in addressing why we actually start enforcing rigid gender expectations from the minute they pop out of the uterus...

[James Arryn]

36 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

If people choose to concentrate on one word that I used rather than the entire post that then that is entirely up to them. My post emphasised the need for choice, that different methods work for different people. I'd say this is a case of people bringing their own assumptions into what I am saying rather than reading my post. I'm not accountable for that.

Either way, I'm willing to let it drop now. If someone wants to continue the discussion I am happy to do so.

It was a pretty illustrative word, though. Here, how does this sound?

I have no problem with liberals. I think it's important for society to have many views. I just think the people need to understand that not everyone is a bleeding heart, that other people have other views that are just as valid. We all have different ways of seeing things, and they're all important. 

See? I'm saying lots of nice, inclusive things about different views...but with one little phrase I'm kinda torpedoing my rhetoric. 

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

16 minutes ago, Mikael said:

This took an unsurprising turn.. 

One thing I've been thinking about recently that's an actual men's rights issue, and not just stuff men shouldn't do, is what we should do to help boys in school. I know I talked earlier about attitude, but I doubt that's going to change any time soon. All I've got really is that we should show boys from the pre school years and forward that we expect them to behave as well as the girls, but also that we believe that they can perform as well. Right now I don't think either of those criteria are met on a large scale.

I do think boys have a worrying future at the moment, they are doing worse and worse in school and possibly the system is not working for them in many ways. I think lack of role models is a huge part of this, we do have a severe lack of male teachers in most schools , especially pre-schools. Also many segments of society have a problem with absentee fathers, which only adds to the issue. 

In essence boys and girls do tend to develop at different rates and in different ways and we need to be conscious of it. I've read in general boys tend to develop lingual skills a little slower at first than girls and so can fall behind and that can leave them viewing education in the wrong way. 

At the same time I also think boys need a bit more discipline, and a way to focus their energy instead of being forced to sit still. I'm not sure what the answers are, but I'd say the way education has evolved hasn't catered that well for boys.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

I'd rather help advance the rights of those groups who are marginalized. I still believe women fall into this category in America--perhaps in a more covert way than before--but this is a fine line, and I can't speak to it with any kind of authority. I used to be upset, for example, how divorce proceedings hit men so hard (as I felt like I was always on the edge of a cliff trying to hold onto reasonable time with my son). But ultimately, life isn't perfect, and most things are in a white male's favor, whether or not I realize I have benefitted from it. My upper-middle-class upbringing, my sliding into college, my access to books and love of writing all come from a position of having parents not treading water. How many generations of white-male-led families prosper just due to this kind of systemic favoring?

I suppose covert methods are always used to marginalize groups. The creator of the topic reminded me of something I've noticed ever since the infamous line from Donald Trump about grabbing women--and I'm not accusing the TC of this, but it's something I've seen from men in classes I attend, where I work, on television, etc. Ever since the recording of Trump surfaced, I feel like some men feel like they have free reign to say the same line, verbatim, in public settings--in disgust of course. But every time I hear the words, I feel my spine lock up, and I think, "how can anyone think it's okay to just blurt this out?" These small abuses of language feel very...I don't know...dominating in a sense. Asserting that vulgar language over a room of women and being able to "get away with it," while still appearing to be an ally. Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but it certainly bugs me every time I hear it. Once was enough.

[Jo498]

6 hours ago, Simon Steele said:

I'd rather help advance the rights of those groups who are marginalized. I still believe women fall into this category in America--perhaps in a more covert way than before--but this is a fine line, and I can't speak to it with any kind of authority. I used to be upset, for example, how divorce proceedings hit men so hard (as I felt like I was always on the edge of a cliff trying to hold onto reasonable time with my son). But ultimately, life isn't perfect, and most things are in a white male's favor, whether or not I realize I have benefitted from it. My upper-middle-class upbringing, my sliding into college, my access to books and love of writing all come from a position of having parents not treading water. How many generations of white-male-led families prosper just due to this kind of systemic favoring?

What does your upper middle class upbringing have to do with your genitals and the color of your skin (and the latter is not even the topic here, after all it seems that colored males are not really doing great in the US either, unless one calls shooting each other in drug turf wars at a a horrendous rate doing great)? If this is systemic favoring it is class-based, not based on anything else. And can we cut the "generations" nonsense? Do you really think it is justice to punish or favor some people today because other people who shared some some superficial characteristics with them (or not) were treated badly a hundred or more years ago? This seems a kind of injustice to me that is comparable to racism because it does not consider the need or merits of an individual but mainly looks at tribe membership. Again, this is the very way of thinking that leads to the tribal wars of today but apparently it is by now so entrenched that it will be here to stay.  (BTW with "ultimately, life isn't perfect" you could cut off *any* complaints someone could make about being treated unfairly. Why do think it is o.k. to tell some people "suck it up" but for others you recognize that they have a valid cause to complain?)

[Savannah]

8 hours ago, Simon Steele said:

How many generations of white-male-led families prosper just due to this kind of systemic favoring?

 

Now the hate for successful white males reaches their families as well? 
This is really sick. 

 

[Theda Baratheon]

It's not hatred or prejudice to point out coming from an upper middle class white family gives you a good starting point in life...

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

11 hours ago, Simon Steele said:

I'd rather help advance the rights of those groups who are marginalized. I still believe women fall into this category in America--perhaps in a more covert way than before--but this is a fine line, and I can't speak to it with any kind of authority. I used to be upset, for example, how divorce proceedings hit men so hard (as I felt like I was always on the edge of a cliff trying to hold onto reasonable time with my son). But ultimately, life isn't perfect, and most things are in a white male's favor, whether or not I realize I have benefitted from it. My upper-middle-class upbringing, my sliding into college, my access to books and love of writing all come from a position of having parents not treading water. How many generations of white-male-led families prosper just due to this kind of systemic favoring?

I suppose covert methods are always used to marginalize groups. The creator of the topic reminded me of something I've noticed ever since the infamous line from Donald Trump about grabbing women--and I'm not accusing the TC of this, but it's something I've seen from men in classes I attend, where I work, on television, etc. Ever since the recording of Trump surfaced, I feel like some men feel like they have free reign to say the same line, verbatim, in public settings--in disgust of course. But every time I hear the words, I feel my spine lock up, and I think, "how can anyone think it's okay to just blurt this out?" These small abuses of language feel very...I don't know...dominating in a sense. Asserting that vulgar language over a room of women and being able to "get away with it," while still appearing to be an ally. Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but it certainly bugs me every time I hear it. Once was enough.

I think its posts like this that are one of the reasons that the OP created this topic. This view that someone's problems are not real or not worth dealing with because someone else might be worse off is a bad way of looking at things. Its worse because its almost taboo to say that white males might in any way have any issues, once you do you are either grouped into a MRA camp and shouted down or just ignored. 

The emergence of Trump, as disgusting as his is, is really just a reminder that everyone has a voice and deserves to be heard. We are not our ancestors. 

There needs to be a bit more understanding of men in general, less vilification of them in the media, more support and less dismissal of problems they have.  Those are genuine issues, they don't just go away because someone has it worse. Women in the western world have it a million times better than in other places on the planet, that doesn't mean we should stop worrying about them.

[DunderMifflin]

2 hours ago, Theda Baratheon said:

It's not hatred or prejudice to point out coming from an upper middle class white family gives you a good starting point in life...

Coming from upper class family gives anyone a good starting point, regardless of race or gender.

 

Also "white" isnt the wealthiest race or ethnic group in the USA.

[Theda Baratheon]

3 hours ago, DunderMifflin said:

Coming from upper class family gives anyone a good starting point, regardless of race or gender.

 

Also "white" isnt the wealthiest race or ethnic group in the USA.

Oh I agree that coming from a wealthy family in general affords you more privilege than anyone from a poor family. 

[James Arryn]

8 hours ago, Jo498 said:

What does your upper middle class upbringing have to do with your genitals and the color of your skin (and the latter is not even the topic here, after all it seems that colored males are not really doing great in the US either, unless one calls shooting each other in drug turf wars at a a horrendous rate doing great)? If this is systemic favoring it is class-based, not based on anything else. And can we cut the "generations" nonsense? Do you really think it is justice to punish or favor some people today because other people who shared some some superficial characteristics with them (or not) were treated badly a hundred or more years ago? This seems a kind of injustice to me that is comparable to racism because it does not consider the need or merits of an individual but mainly looks at tribe membership. Again, this is the very way of thinking that leads to the tribal wars of today but apparently it is by now so entrenched that it will be here to stay.  (BTW with "ultimately, life isn't perfect" you could cut off *any* complaints someone could make about being treated unfairly. Why do think it is o.k. to tell some people "suck it up" but for others you recognize that they have a valid cause to complain?)

Who is benefiting from current affirmative action who ceased to be treated badly as a demographic 'a hundred years or more ago'? 

 

 

Edit: this is IMO where the great divide happens, where you have those who somehow think that things like racism or sexism or homophobia are either sorted (often long sorted, like above,where we can throw out stuff like Jim Crow or the glass ceiling) or have been, through a.a. et al evened or reversed, and those who think that that idea is pretty fucking idiotic. 

All that said, I do think Simon's ultimate 'oh well' about the clear prejudice in the divorce/custody issue is nonsense. Affirmative action is problematic but works because it's the only/best actual solution to push towards equality on significant issues. Rubber stamping clear inequality in other areas as some kind of karmic balancing act is not party to that, and in no way help bring equality forward. All areas of clear systemic prejudice...ie where we know that what we're doing results in a situation where group A is significantly favoured over group B...is part of the problem, not the solution.

[Savannah]

Claiming that stable middle class families are somehow doing well because of systemic favoring is not only hateful but also completely crazy. 

Of course stable families do better. 

What are these people hoping to accomplish? 
Like, do you want to install policies for affirmative action? If a married and a single parent apply for the same position you are supposed to favor the single parent?
Does not sound like a smart policy.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

9 hours ago, Jo498 said:

What does your upper middle class upbringing have to do with your genitals and the color of your skin (and the latter is not even the topic here, after all it seems that colored males are not really doing great in the US either, unless one calls shooting each other in drug turf wars at a a horrendous rate doing great)? If this is systemic favoring it is class-based, not based on anything else. And can we cut the "generations" nonsense? Do you really think it is justice to punish or favor some people today because other people who shared some some superficial characteristics with them (or not) were treated badly a hundred or more years ago? This seems a kind of injustice to me that is comparable to racism because it does not consider the need or merits of an individual but mainly looks at tribe membership. Again, this is the very way of thinking that leads to the tribal wars of today but apparently it is by now so entrenched that it will be here to stay.  (BTW with "ultimately, life isn't perfect" you could cut off *any* complaints someone could make about being treated unfairly. Why do think it is o.k. to tell some people "suck it up" but for others you recognize that they have a valid cause to complain?)

 

 

If I wasn't clear, I apologize, I was referencing a wider frame of marginalization. On closer inspection, I think you  don't believe modern class has much to do with where people land in life.

 

Savannah,

The majority of stable middle-class families in America are white--and that stability comes from generations of fortune while others were oppressed. To say that has no effect on why so many white families are doing well now, and so many others are often more segregated shows a lack of introspection. I come from an upper-middle-class family, and I certainly did not maliciously wish for my needs to be met over the needs of others. But I have to acknowledge that is has happened, or how can I possibly be part of any discussion about the well-being of creating a better environment for everyone? I want to be part of that conversation; therefore, I must acknowledge systemic issues.

Let me step away from the example of class for a moment, and go back to gender.

When we talk of advocating for male rights, I think of arguments such as the "pay gap myth." Here are a couple of articles that debunk the myth that a gap exists between men's and women's pay in the United States:

From Forbes

This articles from Time has much more to go through than just the "gap myth"

The National Review

What we get from the Forbes article is fairly general. That women work less hours over their lifetimes than men, while clarifying the difference between 78 cents on the dollar compared to what men earn as opposed to earning 77 percent of median earnings of full-time male workers--but the author of the article, Karen Agness, does not go into more detail about why women work less.

Time's article is fairly incendiary from the headline. "The Gender Wage Gap and 5 other Feminist Fantasies" was the article title I clicked on in Google search, but I think Time has changed that title to "6 Feminist Myths that Will Not Die." Either way we see an adherence to using the word feminist in its classic stigmatized form. A question I often hear a smart--woman--friend of mine ask of feminists is: "do you want equity or equality." I respond with, "equity often is needed in the short term to lead to equality." The feminist movement has seen a particular kind of aggression thrown at their movement in their push for equality. The words used to describe feminism, perhaps, are not so powerful as they once were, but even as evidenced by Time's headlines: "feminist fantasies, feminist myths" suggests an association of detachment from reality. Language has a powerful effect over how we relate to concepts and ideas, and feminism is one of those words that is trying to be reclaimed in a positive way, but it has been stomped into the mud so often--I fear the reclamation will be difficult. The Time article does get a bit into what it calls the wage gap myth, but the generalities are not enough to really break down.

The National Review article is where we can truly begin to see the issues that show an inherent belief system that still exists in how America deals with its treatment of women. Thomas Sowell writes, "Rigorous research demonstrates that pay levels are determined by career decisions, not the prejudices of employers." First, "not the predjudice of employers" is kind of the definition of a sytemic bias, but more on that in a moment. I think it is worth being clear when we argue that women are paid differently than men due to many factors, and that the waters aren't muddied by blanket statements such as "women are paid 70 cents to every man's dollar." These statements only serve for others to create strawman arguments and not get to the heart of the issue.

Sowell writes, "Women as a group do get paid less than men as a group. But not for doing the same work. Women average fewer annual hours of work than men. They work continuously for fewer years than men, since only women get pregnant, and most women are not prepared to instantly dump the baby on somebody else to raise." Here lays a primary issue we often don't get to--and I have seen this referred to as "the motherhood penalty." I see a number of problems with this argument. First, Sowell writes it right into his own argument. Only women can get pregnant. So when two people choose to have a family--every single time the woman will lose some amount of work time from this due to biological factors--even if she comes back to work as soon as she possibly can. If a woman chooses to stay home with the child, then she looses more time and experience while men never have this issue. Here is an unfair issue of biology that we never attempt to find solutions for because we're bogged down somewhere else.

First, men could stay home, but our society is not structured in such a way that seems to work. Why is this? A man taking time off work to raise the children while the woman pursues a career can happen, but both members of that family undergo a system of bias from certain portions of the population. Men who stay at home and don't work: can't. Women who work and don't stay with the kids: emotional distant and unavailable. Not all of society treats people this way, but the stigma is there , and it can exist in enough places to put enough pressure on people to not make these kinds of decisions. You can say, "Well, Simon, I am a stay at home dad and it worked for me." So was I, and while I ignored the stigma from family members, many people find they cannot do this.

Other issues arise to in this debate. Such as: why do women have to stop working when they stay at home? Many jobs today can accommodate you working and keeping up on your skills from home. Or perhaps finding ways to bring your children to work--our congresswomen found ways to do that--but these solutions don't happen. Why? I posit that men are inherently, systematically valued more in the workplace, and because they stay and women go, no reason exists for employers to try and find ways to keep women in the workforce. This is not willfull nor is it on purpose, it is systemically ingrained into our culture in such complex fashion that we no longer realize it is happening. In some ways, it is a cultural acceptance of gender and sex roles. A culturally hegemonic assertion of values in our society. 

This issue is infinitely more complex than I have outlined here, but I wanted to show a small piece of why advocating for men's rights seems problematic to me. This aligns similarly with race/class/genitals as someone crudely put it above, because all systemic influence functions in this way. It operates covertly. We don't realize it's happening nor that we're taking part in it.
 

[Centrist Simon Steele]

6 hours ago, Theda Baratheon said:

It's not hatred or prejudice to point out coming from an upper middle class white family gives you a good starting point in life...

 

Thanks for stating more clearly what I wanted to say--I wasn't proposing anything hatred  based, only that my upbringing has fundamentally put me in a better position than a lot of groups who still struggle in the United States, and for me to say it's time to get past that--I would say that is missing the point.

Channel4JonSnow,

Consider, though, if we were to work on class issues that resolved issues for people of color--in reasonable ways--would that not also help white working class people who are struggling? Because they are struggling. I am by no means the upper-middle-class adult that I was as a child. I suppose I see this kind of reform happening through more socialistic practices of redistribution of wealth and creating a livable, breathable system for the working class, and those living in poverty. 

Men's rights vs. women's rights is much more difficult for me though as I outlined in another post. 

[Centrist Simon Steele]

48 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

Who is benefiting from current affirmative action who ceased to be treated badly as a demographic 'a hundred years or more ago'? 

 

 

Edit: this is IMO where the great divide happens, where you have those who somehow think that things like racism or sexism or homophobia are either sorted (often long sorted, like above,where we can throw out stuff like Jim Crow or the glass ceiling) or have been, through a.a. et al evened or reversed, and those who think that that idea is pretty fucking idiotic. 

All that said, I do think Simon's ultimate 'oh well' about the clear prejudice in the divorce/custody issue is nonsense. Affirmative action is problematic but works because it's the only/best actual solution to push towards equality on significant issues. Rubber stamping clear inequality in other areas as some kind of karmic balancing act is not party to that, and in no way help bring equality forward. All areas of clear systemic prejudice...ie where we know that what we're doing results in a situation where group A is significantly favoured over group B...is part of the problem, not the solution.

 

Ah, my "oh well" perhaps comes from the fact I was able to retain 50 percent rights to my son. Every other week. It's been a constant battle, but I have been able to keep it. My "oh well" shouldn't be me saying "what can you do?" You're right, that's not the solution either, but the concept of pushing for men's rights does become problematic, I think. I don't know what the answer is, but I suppose "oh well" isn't it.

[TerraPrime]

On 3/3/2017 at 6:33 AM, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

My point was more around the idea that men actually don't see it as a problem because it isn't one. For many men they have their own way of dealing with issues which are absolutely as valid and as useful as bawling your eyes out to a councellor. For some people that works and for some it doesn't. I don't think we should paint everyone with the same brush or prescribe the same medicine. 

Clearly, least to me, the problems I identified indicate that the traditional gender norm of stoicism is NOT serving all men.  

 

I look at events like the sad/rabid puppies, the gamergate, and the energetically reactionary misogyny against feminists from the young male crowd group and all I see is the frustration and anger at their own failure of living up to the ideals they have bought into. The narrative of "alphas and betas" turn that anger towards other men, by establishing control through domination, while the "involuntary celibacy" framework channels that frustration against women. These are all signs to me that traditional male gender standards are failing large swaths of men. 

 

Can some men be in that traditional gender role and be okay? Yes, of course. Some people can live with just one kidney, too, and it doesn't mean that that should be the norm we aim for. 

 

And, honestly, if you're really about "not painting everyone with the same brush," perhaps you should not use disparaging language when describing paths that deviate from the traditional options. If the idea is to promote the notion of "there are many ways to be a 'man'" then belittling things like seeking counseling and emotional support is exactly the counter to that idea. That's like me saying we should welcome different clothing options for men but we don't all need to become sissies by wearing a dress. 

 

[TerraPrime]

7 hours ago, Simon Steele said:

Ah, my "oh well" perhaps comes from the fact I was able to retain 50 percent rights to my son. Every other week. It's been a constant battle, but I have been able to keep it. My "oh well" shouldn't be me saying "what can you do?" You're right, that's not the solution either, but the concept of pushing for men's rights does become problematic, I think. I don't know what the answer is, but I suppose "oh well" isn't it.

 

I think there is a path to address the real and genuine problems that men in our society face, as a consequence of being men, without detracting from the energy and efforts to make things better for women. I don't believe it has to be a zero-sum game. I think the two movements are synergistic, not antagonistic. 

 

Sadly, so far, the men's right movement has repeatedly failed to offer a model I can support. From the mythopoetics to to the meninists, from Iron John to Lost Boys, they are drowning in reactionary anti-feminism. Time and again, I see groups that correctly identified the symptoms of the problems, only to attribute it to the wrong root cause, and then proceed to produce solutions that I can neither agree nor endorse. So far,  I find more positive space for being men among feminists than I do among men's rights movement. 

[Savannah]

Simon Steal

Getting to stay at home with ones kids is a privilege, not systemic, or any kind of oppression at all.

 

 

[Isalie]

Except if you have no choice in the matter... 

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

9 hours ago, TerraPrime said:

Sadly, so far, the men's right movement has repeatedly failed to offer a model I can support. From the mythopoetics to to the meninists, from Iron John to Lost Boys, they are drowning in reactionary anti-feminism. Time and again, I see groups that correctly identified the symptoms of the problems, only to attribute it to the wrong root cause, and then proceed to produce solutions that I can neither agree nor endorse. So far,  I find more positive space for being men among feminists than I do among men's rights movement. 

I'd say on the whole I'd agree with this. Much of the mens rights movement is poisonous and is about an outright hatred of women. All the things you mentioned, including something like the 'men go their own way' movement are about men seeing that society isn't serving them and feel in fact they have no option but to retreat from it and hide in their own closed chat groups. They see women as the oppressor, that while traditionally men were seen to be in control, for these men they see men as having all the power now.

I think however that the reason they don't all suddenly get on board with feminism is that feminism doesn't really address the core concerns that many men feel are affecting them. One of those being sexuality. If you look at Red Pill for instance, its massively interested in sexual dynamics, its angry at the way it feels society has turned against men and demonised their sexuality, painting all men as rapists for even hinting at being sexually pro-active.

And thats because most men have inherently frustrating sex lives and feel the sexual power balance is tipped against them. Even with ever more open sexual norms many men are basically picking up the scraps. They feel like marriage is an institution that doesn't suit them, that divorce is damaging mainly to them. They are also coming to realise that the fairytale version of women they believed growing up, of a woman who will love them unconditionally, is an illusion. 

 

9 hours ago, TerraPrime said:

 The narrative of "alphas and betas" turn that anger towards other men, by establishing control through domination, while the "involuntary celibacy" framework channels that frustration against women. These are all signs to me that traditional male gender standards are failing large swaths of men. 

I don't think any of the above problems are inherently problems with traditional male gender standards. They are mostly about sexual politics. We shouldn't forget how powerful that sexual will is within many guys, how it drives behaviour. Feminism doesn't really address any of those issues, instead it generally tends to make men fearful of their own sexuality and unsure of their own role.. while those who are more traditionally macho tend to end up getting all the girls. Its a confusing message because you have one area of society telling you to behave in one way, but in reality they see that it doesn't get them the life they wanted.