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

[Michael Seswatha Jordan]

On 3/3/2017 at 10:23 AM, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

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.

I have a 7 yr old girl, brilliant, student of the month, never brought home a grade other than an A, usually 100%.

My 5 year old is smart and likes school, but is not nearly on the level my daughter was at his age. I agree, little boys are balls of energy and you need to focus that energy on something instead of "sit still", "go to your room" and all the other ways little boys are dealt with. We buy our son puzzles, and he uses his IPad for educational games. This has seemed to help keep him focused and more calm. But, boys will be boys. No matter how hard you try and make boys and girls alike or want them to be, there are just natural differences. Let me just say this, winter is the worst time of year for a young boy, stuck inside most of the time. My daughter handles it better. My son would bounce off the wall if we didn't give him things to keep him occupied while educating him and encouraging creativity. And that's it right there, I think young girls are by nature more creative, thus can occupy there time in a easier manner. 

[mankytoes]

On 04/03/2017 at 1:43 AM, 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.

It's interesting that you see it as an either/or, a zero sum game. I see it very differently, I think if you're advancing men's rights in the right way, you're also helping women. And if you always see men's issues as unimportant, you're just going to piss them off, and end up with leaders like Trump.

You're kind of mixing in a lot of things there- wealth, class, gender, race. I'm just talking about gender here. Look at the issues I mentioned in the opening post- homelessness, addiction, crime, health, education- these are all things that disproportionatly effect poor men, and, depending on where you live, often ethnic minority men. I'm certainly not trying to advocate specifically for white, upper middle class men.

I'm also not sure how those things justify you being treated as an inherently inferior or less deserving parent. We should seek justice in all areas, not think "oh, that's unfair to men, but other things are unfair to women, so it balances out". It might balance out for you, but what about poor men who have none of your advantages, and still get screwed by the divorce courts? Or women who don't have children, so don't get that benefit, but are prejudiced against in other areas?

I'd be interested to get women's views on that. Sounds like more of a class issue to me, I hear worse things than that most days. I mean to me language is about context, if you're quoting someone to disagree or parody them, I don't think it's offensive. There were a lot of jokes like that made when Trump met Theresa May in our press, I don't know if it was mainly men or women making them, but I think it's fair game to use Trump's own words to mock and satorise him.

1 hour ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said:

My 5 year old is smart and likes school, but is not nearly on the level my daughter was at his age. I agree, little boys are balls of energy and you need to focus that energy on something instead of "sit still", "go to your room" and all the other ways little boys are dealt with. We buy our son puzzles, and he uses his IPad for educational games. This has seemed to help keep him focused and more calm. But, boys will be boys. No matter how hard you try and make boys and girls alike or want them to be, there are just natural differences. Let me just say this, winter is the worst time of year for a young boy, stuck inside most of the time. My daughter handles it better. My son would bounce off the wall if we didn't give him things to keep him occupied while educating him and encouraging creativity. And that's it right there, I think young girls are by nature more creative, thus can occupy there time in a easier manner. 

This may be true, it's always difficult to separate nature and nurture. Either way, the problem is when a general principle is applied as if it is true to every person. There are young boys who are more creative, and there are young girls who are bouncing off the walls. The problem is when people are certain their children should be acting a certain way to be normal.

This is important to me, because it relates to my favourite liberal principle, individualism. It's important we avoid groupthink with children and adults.

This is sort of thing where I feel like feminists and "meninists", or whatever you want to call them, should be coming together. This is a right that we all should have.

[Michael Seswatha Jordan]

Well I certainly understand girls can be crazy like little boys and little boys calm. I'm not generalizing, I was just giving my personal experience. 

[Savannah]

2 hours ago, Mikael said:

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

Most families do need two incomes to get along so there's no privilege to stay at home. 

[Liver and Onions]

59 minutes ago, Savannah said:

Most families do need two incomes to get along so there's no privilege to stay at home. 

You're right that many families need both incomes. I'd argue that the problem comes in when there's no one else to care for the child besides the parent- no affordable/trustworthy daycare, no family members or neighborhood support system, not to mention the social stigma of a mother not being there every second of the day for her child (a stigma that exists both in the eyes of others and in the hypothetical mother- that she'll feel she's  not being a "good mom" unless she's raising her kid in the traditional way.)

[Savannah]

1 hour ago, Liver and Onions said:

You're right that many families need both incomes. I'd argue that the problem comes in when there's no one else to care for the child besides the parent- no affordable/trustworthy daycare, no family members or neighborhood support system, not to mention the social stigma of a mother not being there every second of the day for her child (a stigma that exists both in the eyes of others and in the hypothetical mother- that she'll feel she's  not being a "good mom" unless she's raising her kid in the traditional way.)

I do agree with the beginning of your post, the end of it not so much. 

Surely some parents, men and women alike, might spend time with their kids just because they think it's expected of them. 

Most people do it because they want to, they actually value that time and see it beneficial for the child, just for one example the bonding while nursing. 

[Toth]

2 hours ago, Michael Seswatha Jordan said:

Well I certainly understand girls can be crazy like little boys and little boys calm. I'm not generalizing, I was just giving my personal experience. 

That is good to hear and needs to be pointed out. To be honest, I stumbled upon that sentence just like mankytoes did. Partly because I have heard 'boys will be boys' far too often as an excuse for shitty behaviour either on the child's part or from parents who don't want their sons anywhere near a book. That's why it's relieving to read that you didn't intend to use it as a generalization. Most of the time it is, though. And while I do think that there are some slightly higher chances for boys to be more bouncy due to the different body and hormon structure, it's just one factor that is still outweighed by the way they are raised and individual personality of the child in question. And if we're talking about personal experiences here, then I have to say that in my relatively short time as a teacher I found it very hard to apply any kind of these generalizations. It just doesn't work. In fact, the one course with all-girl primary schoolers I tutor is the most stressful one I have. So when it comes to personal experiences, I could very well argue the opposite. Age and upbringing seem to be the most important factors. And I think going into parenthood with that mindset should be the fairest approach, because it allows you offer your child all the possibilities, both the one it is interested in and the one you yourself think will be useful in the future.

The other one is that of role models and media of course. Interestingly, I'm currently on a little nostalgia trip, watching a show I had watched while I was in primary school due to some anniversary thing that is trying to cater to their old fans. I never paid much attention to this show back then, but now that I do I find it striking how clearly coded the genders are. All the male leads are all athletic blockheads with an awful read of emotions, who are constantly competing or beating each other up over nothing and then claim it to be a 'tough friendship'. With the exception of the token nerd, that is. Now in retrospective, I find that really worrying. Because the message is clear: If you want to be a protagonist in your life, you have to behave like the leads, not like the supporting nerd. That's not to say that the leads are devoid of positive traits, but they lack the depth to allow the watcher to properly question them. They are 'just like that', which... should be pointed out and criticized as well. That said, the female coding is even worse...

[DunderMifflin]

What I got from the "boys will be boys" comment is that you can't force ANY kid into some vague stereotype. If a girl is a rough housing wall bouncer you cant force her to be a well behaved, sit quietly type of person. If a boy likes having tea parties you can't force him to love playing with race cars and army men. (Unless they already do enjoy both), but you can't force it.

[mankytoes]

On the above topic, I was watching that mega long OJ documentary that won the Oscar, and one of his childhood friends said something like "my mom raised me well, but I didn't want to be like a woman, I wanted to be like a man. And the men we saw who looked powerful were pimps, big flashy guys who would beat the shit out of hookers publicly to set an example".

That got me thinking. I wasn't taught by a man until secondary school, so until I was eleven. I had both parents at home, but if my dad hadn't been around, I would have had practically no contact with adult men. I guess my football coach, but of course there are plenty of boys who don't have that either. There must be a reasonable number of boys, especially from poorer backgrounds, who don't really have any contact with men, who don't know any men. Most of them will have a better example than a pimp, but still. It must be incredibly rare for a girl to have that experience, to not see any women.

 

[Toth]

1 hour ago, mankytoes said:

On the above topic, I was watching that mega long OJ documentary that won the Oscar, and one of his childhood friends said something like "my mom raised me well, but I didn't want to be like a woman, I wanted to be like a man. And the men we saw who looked powerful were pimps, big flashy guys who would beat the shit out of hookers publicly to set an example".

That got me thinking. I wasn't taught by a man until secondary school, so until I was eleven. I had both parents at home, but if my dad hadn't been around, I would have had practically no contact with adult men. I guess my football coach, but of course there are plenty of boys who don't have that either. There must be a reasonable number of boys, especially from poorer backgrounds, who don't really have any contact with men, who don't know any men. Most of them will have a better example than a pimp, but still. It must be incredibly rare for a girl to have that experience, to not see any women.

Agreed. And that's why I think pressing for representation is a good thing. Just thinking about my own school life... I had a male teacher for biology and craft (a voluntary subject about mistreating wood with saws until it looks somewhat like tables or toy trucks) and I looked up quite a lot to him for the sole reason that he was the only male teacher at that school. And because my class teacher and the school administration were hilariously corrupt. That they blatantly favoured girls was one of their smaller problems. Afterwards I heard from another guy who had attended this school that this male teacher was kind of a self-centered dick as well, but I seem to to have consciously ignored it for the sake of seeing him as the confident educator he appeared to be. Stories of my fellow students at college seem to agree with that. I was especially moved by that story of a guy with Palestinian background who told me of his teaching experience and how much difficult pupils with immigrant background suddenly opened to him, simply because he was such an unexpected sight at that school. Representation through teachers really seems to do things to kids.

That said, this male teacher was not entirely at fault for my decision to become a teacher myself. I actually mostly forgot about him at the time I did that. I believe my mother's insistance on the importance of education to broaden your opportunities was the most important factor. It caused me to think that I want to pass that on, to make people have fun with the subjects I had fun with. She herself did that mostly out of regret because her limited education was biting her into the ass and she didn't want me to suffer the same. Add to that a rocky relationship with a father who's extremely dismissive of education and considers me a failure for not being crazy for sports like he is and you see a story in which my father's constant ranting and insults caused me to focus on my studies instead. I strongly believe circumstances like these have a lot of influence on our interests and decision-making, even though this is just anecdotal evidence on my part.

[Theda Baratheon]

7 hours ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

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. 

 

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.

I feel like the idea that women have the upper hand when it comes to sex to be pretty fucking baffling. Even with the whole "sexual liberation" and if a woman wants to go out to a club and pick someone up there is a danger in that. Women don't have it easy when it comes to sex at all...I don't understand your views on male sexuality at all and just men in general.

Because it's obviously not true that all men hate marriage and that all women love it - I've never thought about it as part of my future in my whole life. 

To be honest I just don't really understand your generalisations of men as well. 

How the hell is the sexual power balance tipped against men!? 

[mormont]

8 hours ago, Savannah said:

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

The issue is that although many men may say that getting to stay at home is a privilege, they don't behave as if it is. At present, in many Western countries, there are opportunities for men to stay at home as a parent, and by and large men don't take them.

There are a variety of reasons for that. Most, I think, have to do with men's perceptions of their role in the family and in society. So that's absolutely an issue for this discussion. Whether it is, in turn, oppressive to women is important, but maybe not the focus in this thread.

7 hours ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

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. 

Apart from the last sentence - which, by the way, is an extremely good thing and can only reduce the number of failed marriages IMO - I recognise none of this as relating to how things are in the real world.

[Theda Baratheon]

2 minutes ago, mormont said:

The issue is that although many men may say that getting to stay at home is a privilege, they don't behave as if it is. At present, in many Western countries, there are opportunities for men to stay at home as a parent, and by and large men don't take them.

There are a variety of reasons for that. Most, I think, have to do with men's perceptions of their role in the family and in society. So that's absolutely an issue for this discussion. Whether it is, in turn, oppressive to women is important, but maybe not the focus in this thread.

Apart from the last sentence - which, by the way, is an extremely good thing and can only reduce the number of failed marriages IMO - I recognise none of this as relating to how things are in the real world.

Yeah the last sentence it's the fault of men for having such high expectations for women and then getting really angry when those aren't met. 

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

36 minutes ago, Theda Baratheon said:

I feel like the idea that women have the upper hand when it comes to sex to be pretty fucking baffling. Even with the whole "sexual liberation" and if a woman wants to go out to a club and pick someone up there is a danger in that. Women don't have it easy when it comes to sex at all...I don't understand your views on male sexuality at all and just men in general.

Because it's obviously not true that all men hate marriage and that all women love it - I've never thought about it as part of my future in my whole life. 

To be honest I just don't really understand your generalisations of men as well. 

How the hell is the sexual power balance tipped against men!? 

How is it baffling? In general its women who hold all the cards when it comes to sex, its them who decides when and where it happens. All men can do is try and win the woman's approval and most don't ever get it. This means that most men end up being harshly rejected over and over.

This just becomes a way of life for men and is one of the reasons they end up frustrated and often just disengage from romance altogether. Why some men because forced celibate or go completely in the other direction by being creepy lotharios.  I think its not something women ever consider or even notice.



 

[Theda Baratheon]

13 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

How is it baffling? In general its women who hold all the cards when it comes to sex, its them who decides when and where it happens. All men can do is try and win the woman's approval and most don't ever get it. This means that most men end up being harshly rejected over and over.

This just becomes a way of life for men and is one of the reasons they end up frustrated and often just disengage from romance altogether. Why some men because forced celibate or go completely in the other direction by being creepy lotharios.  I think its not something women ever consider or even notice.



 

lmao i haven't had sex in 4 years and I'm not asexual and I'm a woman. This idea that women have the upper hand in sex and can just choose when and who to have it with is just delusional. Sex is weird and confusing for everyone. And there's plenty of women who are frustrated, awkward, or any other combination of things that means this generalision that women have the upper hand over men just isn't true. 

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

22 minutes ago, Theda Baratheon said:

lmao i haven't had sex in 4 years and I'm not asexual and I'm a woman. This idea that women have the upper hand in sex and can just choose when and who to have it with is just delusional. Sex is weird and confusing for everyone. And there's plenty of women who are frustrated, awkward, or any other combination of things that means this generalision that women have the upper hand over men just isn't true. 

Without getting personal I'm pretty sure you could go out tomorrow and get laid if you chose. Most men couldn't say the same.

[mormont]

39 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

How is it baffling? In general its women who hold all the cards when it comes to sex, its them who decides when and where it happens.

Wow.

This is about as clear an intimation of the problem as I've ever seen.

No, women do not 'decide when and where it happens'. You know why? Because for 'it' to happen at all, both parties have to consent.

You understand what that means? That means it is a mutual decision. Not one made by the woman: one made by both parties.

What other scenario do you have in mind? One where the man wants sex and the woman doesn't but 'it happens' anyway? If you're a man and you have the idea that this is how it works or should work, the problem is not that you've been rendered powerless. It's that somewhere along the line, you've been fed a poisonous lie and you bought it.

[James Arryn]

2 minutes ago, mormont said:

Wow.

This is about as clear an intimation of the problem as I've ever seen.

No, women do not 'decide when and where it happens'. You know why? Because for 'it' to happen at all, both parties have to consent.

You understand what that means? That means it is a mutual decision. Not one made by the woman: one made by both parties.

What other scenario do you have in mind? One where the man wants sex and the woman doesn't but 'it happens' anyway? If you're a man and you have the idea that this is how it works or should work, the problem is not that you've been rendered powerless. It's that somewhere along the line, you've been fed a poisonous lie and you bought it.

I don't agree with what C4JS is saying about this at all, but this response is a convoluted straw man, the idea that he's bemoaning limitations on sexual assault or the constraints of consent. He is rather pepetuing the myth that men have much more active sexual appetites or less sexual discretion, which is kindof a bizarre supply/demand argument re:power. Twisting this into a silent appeal for lowering the bar on sexual assault...I mean, you really have to want to see that to see that there IMO. 

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

5 minutes ago, mormont said:

Wow.

This is about as clear an intimation of the problem as I've ever seen.

No, women do not 'decide when and where it happens'. You know why? Because for 'it' to happen at all, both parties have to consent.

You understand what that means? That means it is a mutual decision. Not one made by the woman: one made by both parties.

What other scenario do you have in mind? One where the man wants sex and the woman doesn't but 'it happens' anyway? If you're a man and you have the idea that this is how it works or should work, the problem is not that you've been rendered powerless. It's that somewhere along the line, you've been fed a poisonous lie and you bought it.

Yes both parties have to consent. Of course. That doesn't mean that often the final say isn't in the hands of the woman. If her decision is forced or its not mutual then clearly its assault. I'm not sure why you think I'm saying something different.

[James Arryn]

54 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

How is it baffling? In general its women who hold all the cards when it comes to sex, its them who decides when and where it happens. All men can do is try and win the woman's approval and most don't ever get it. This means that most men end up being harshly rejected over and over.

This just becomes a way of life for men and is one of the reasons they end up frustrated and often just disengage from romance altogether. Why some men because forced celibate or go completely in the other direction by being creepy lotharios.  I think its not something women ever consider or even notice.



 

I'm not sure where you go with this even if you believe it to be true. Are you just being observational and attributing this to the ravages of nature...ie that women ought to consider/notice this in terms of understanding it to have an effect, or are you suggesting that something out to be different than it is? What would/could you possibly change about this if it's true?