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

[Savannah]

14 hours 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.

 

There are plenty of women too who do have that privilege and they choose not to stay at home. So what?

If the child is taken good care of why should you judge women who choose to work? Why would you judge men who choose to work? 

What's your point? 

 

[mormont]

10 hours ago, Liffguard said:

Again, being charitable, I think what he's trying to say is that whilst consent is always required by both parties, a man's consent is generally assumed to already exist.

I think that's part of what he's trying to say, but not all. And it is, frankly, part of that poisonous attitude I keep referring to that entraps men.

To turn this to the topic of the thread, it's true that men are admired for being sexually successful: and this creates a feeling among some men that they 'should' be sleeping with lots of women. They feel like they have to pick up women to have self-worth. They fear that being turned down is making them less of a man. And they then project that onto the women who're turning them down. So the whole thing becomes about consent being unreasonably withheld by women. (The situation is exacerbated by the attached idea that it's the man's role to somehow overcome the woman's resistance, and the woman is essentially passive, a prize to be won.)

The tragedy is that the whole thing is unnecessary. But it's pernicious. I'll admit, I've found myself succumbing to it in the past. A culture of meaningful mutual consent is better for everyone, men and women.

10 hours ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

And again, while mormont might not agree with my observations id suggest he talks to more women as surveys suggest most women think men should pay on dates

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/amp.usatoday.com/story/16195739/

Some surveys do, some don't. Despite the reporting slant, this one finds that the majority don't.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/revealed-how-many-women-think-7927985

Of course, the one you're citing is a US survey and the one I'm citing is a UK one, and there are cultural differences. Still, the point remains: one needs to be careful about universalising one's own experiences.

5 minutes ago, Savannah said:

There are plenty of women too who do have that privilege and they choose not to stay at home. So what?

If the child is taken good care of why should you judge women who choose to work? Why would you judge men who choose to work? 

What's your point?

My point is as stated: men don't behave as if staying at home is a privilege.

[Theda Baratheon]

42 minutes ago, baxus said:

It's like any other stereotype out there - a conclusion drawn from a poorly chosen sample.

Are you saying that you'd have sex with any woman that would have you?

Everything you are saying in this post sounds exactly like an excuse men use when asked why they have no girlfriends. It's easier to point fingers to ALL women than to consider what you might improve to catch their attention.

While we're at it, do you think that every girl/woman gets attention from boys/men? It could easily be argued that women have it worse. Let me put it this way, the impression I get is there are a lot more beautiful and successful women willing to give plain looking but smart and funny men a chance than the other way around.

Once again, most women will definitely not have a large amount of men pursue them. It's a myth perpetuated by men with low standards who, ironically, ignore majority of women who are not up to their imagined standard of beauty.

Women are well within their rights to be "doing the choosing". They are under no obligation to have sex with a guy they don't like, no matter how "silly" their reason may seem to you or how frustrating men feel when rejected.

Yeah I wanted to say something like this earlier but didn't want to keep relying on personal anecdotes but Ive never once felt in my whole life that I've had a line of guys wanting to date me LOL that just doesn't happen in real life!! - how are women able to pick and choose when there is no one to pick and choose from lol its tough enough finding one person you fancy and connect with who also fancies you let alone the B.S "women have it so much easier they can get laid whenever they want there's men chasing them all the time" lmao in what world!? I know absolutely gorgeous girls this doesn't happen to and I also just don't think that in reality, today, men are the main "chasers" or persuers - I see plenty of women asking men out and persuing guys they fancy so whilst traditionally men might have been expected to make the first moves I just don't see that as true in reality today 

But I believe that plenty of men BELIEVE this and it's a factor in why they're so frustrated and angry I would just say they take care of themselves and go out and have a laugh more lol and stop putting women on pedestals and getting angry when they 'fall short'.

[Savannah]

6 minutes ago, mormont said:

 

 

My point is as stated: men don't behave as if staying at home is a privilege.

So there's no point and it's false too.

Some men act like that, also some women act like that. 

 

[Isalie]

This again. 

Also, the proportion of men acting like the woman should be the primary care giver is equal to the proportion of women acting like the man should be the primary care giver? 

Anyway, it would be interesting to hear from someone who proposes individualisation in school in order to help boys, what that would entail exactly. 

[mankytoes]

2 hours ago, Theda Baratheon said:

Yeah I wanted to say something like this earlier but didn't want to keep relying on personal anecdotes but Ive never once felt in my whole life that I've had a line of guys wanting to date me LOL that just doesn't happen in real life!! - how are women able to pick and choose when there is no one to pick and choose from lol its tough enough finding one person you fancy and connect with who also fancies you let alone the B.S "women have it so much easier they can get laid whenever they want there's men chasing them all the time" lmao in what world!? I know absolutely gorgeous girls this doesn't happen to and I also just don't think that in reality, today, men are the main "chasers" or persuers - I see plenty of women asking men out and persuing guys they fancy so whilst traditionally men might have been expected to make the first moves I just don't see that as true in reality today 

But I believe that plenty of men BELIEVE this and it's a factor in why they're so frustrated and angry I would just say they take care of themselves and go out and have a laugh more lol and stop putting women on pedestals and getting angry when they 'fall short'.

If they are gorgeous, or even average, just tell them to go on Tinder, write "seeking casual sex", and watch the offers pour in. If all you want is to get laid, it isn't difficult.

Obviously laws of averages will show you that these guys aren't just chasing them, they're just looking for anyone.

That's definitely true, in dating and other areas of life, people tend to maximise their own difficulties, and minimise those of others. It's not rare to hear men and women turning bad relationship experiences into sexist feelings.

I do think a lot of the frustration also comes from the standards of masculinity we are raised with. Not being able to get laid is seen as inherently humiliating for a man.

[DunderMifflin]

I don't think it should be framed as women/men have it easier. But I certainly think there are substantial differences in general.

Men tend to have relationships all across the social scale. Up or down in class typically doesn't matter to men. While women tend to be much more choosy, this seems much more difficult than just hooking up with anyone you find physically attractive. The results see men faced with a more constant stream of rejection. Easier/harder isn't a good way to frame it.  

I think the "choosiness" of women has shaped what humans are today so I don't think being selective is something necessary oppressed upon women. 

I also think framing issues by a vague identity isnt good either. It tends to see every difference in your group and others as victimizing your group when in reality the differences can and do result negatively for those in all identity groups. With an added bonus of further seperating people based on a vague identity.

[Isalie]

Btw, can someone tell me how this is a men's rights issue? 

[DunderMifflin]

4 minutes ago, Mikael said:

Btw, can someone tell me how this is a men's rights issue? 

The topic of sex/relationships would fall under men issues rather than men's rights. The thread is "mens rights/issues" not "men's rights issues"

[Isalie]

Fair enough I guess. Though I have troule seeing more in this than "some people have lower status than others, this affects their life, that is frustrating".

[DunderMifflin]

7 minutes ago, Mikael said:

Fair enough I guess. Though I have troule seeing more in this than "some people have lower status than others, this affects their life, that is frustrating".

 

7 minutes ago, Mikael said:

Fair enough I guess. Though I have troule seeing more in this than "some people have lower status than others, this affects their life, that is frustrating".

That's pretty much all that's needed to claim victimhood for an entire group of poorly defined people in the modern western world.

[Isalie]

In that case, it's a good thing we can judge individual issues on their respective merit.

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

I think when I brought this up ( before it blew up) was in context of most men's rights movement discussion , which often revolves around sex and dating. This seems to be a huge motivator for a lot of guys and you can see it in their resentment , and how it clouds their view of women.

i think it's relevant to discuss it because if you don't address these guys views about sexual relationships you don't ever really get to the core of why they are upset. They often feel that feminism doesn't serve their interests; that it really just demonises men, especially their sexuality and likens them to rapists. They often feel confused as to their roles, women saying they want kind soft gentle men, but often picking the exact opposite. I guess they feel powerless in a way that doesn't fit with the often described view of men by feminism, and that women are quite protected in a lot of ways. They certainly hold women up too high in many regards.

Thats not to say I agree with them, though yes I think I feel a level of sympathy for why they are upset, I don't think it's entirely baseless even if it's blown wildly out of proportion and full of bile. But I think it's important to see where this anger is coming from. While much of feminist discussion revolves around wages and careers, men's discussion ends up being about their sex lives where they feel they are really losing out.

 

[DunderMifflin]

15 minutes ago, Mikael said:

In that case, it's a good thing we can judge individual issues on their respective merit.

Sure we can do that but it's wayyyyyy more clickbaity to base judgment on broad and poorly defined groups of people.

[Jo498]

1 hour ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

They often feel confused as to their roles, women saying they want kind soft gentle men, but often picking the exact opposite. I guess they feel powerless in a way that doesn't fit with the often described view of men by feminism, and that women are quite protected in a lot of ways. They certainly hold women up too high in many regards.

Thats not to say I agree with them, though yes I think I feel a level of sympathy for why they are upset, I don't think it's entirely baseless even if it's blown wildly out of proportion and full of bile. But I think it's important to see where this anger is coming from. While much of feminist discussion revolves around wages and careers, men's discussion ends up being about their sex lives where they feel they are really losing out.

This seems a pretty good summary. The environment has become more difficult for certain kinds of men. I think the analysis of some of the "red pill crowd" as far as both biological roots and the historical changes in the last 50 years are concerned has often some truth although these facts are generally presented in a skewed, resentful and spiteful way and also overgeneralising. But while overgeneralising paints with too broad a brush it is usually not without foundation in experience. Apparently "game" works with certain types of women (no idea if it is a majority). In any case this shows that many men are rather clueless wrt to subtle clues that would help them in dating. (It is of course doubtful that someone so awkward and socially clueless would really improve his situation by readymade "game" flirting tips...)

This was probably different when the analogue to modern dating was more formalized/standardized (say formal ballroom dances) and therefore not so strongly dependent on inborn sex-appeal and social intelligence (of course these were always important as any historical novel from times with far stricter social and sexual rules will show). Put simply, in a 1950 environment even very shy people were "forced" to go to a dance or similar occasion and with rather fixed rules it was maybe not that difficult to recognize if someone was only flirting or really interested. A more anarchic environment with far more liberal sexual mores depends to a larger extent on social intelligence and the awkward people will just drop out and rather surf the net than reluctantly go to that dance or social event where they might be able to pair up with another shy person.

(The libertine mores also allow attractive people to really leverage their sexual power whereas this is not possible to the same extent in a more prudish culture. As someone pointed out elsewhere, it is not really easy today to see what was wrong with Don Juan, after all he was a seducer, not a rapist. Seducing means bringing someone to consent to something that is wrong. But if nothing consensual can be wrong it is very hard to morally condemn a seducer.)

As for who has it worst and best in dating, I'd guess that physically very unattractive women have it worst and attractive men have it best. The bone of contention is what about the "average" person? This is very hard to answer because there are obviously aspects of attractiveness that are very difficult to quantify. That's why people are puzzled over "unlikely" pairings or over the dating success some physically only average-looking people. But if one accepts some biological roots (again, the do not determine everything, the point is that they cannot be simply denied by fiat) or the common sense that "average" 20 year old women are rather attractive to most men (because a central aspect of sexual attraction is youth and physical beauty) whereas average 20 year old guys often are not (because they are often not yet self-confident, often still gangly, socially awkward etc.) it is very plausible that between ca. 15 and 25 "average" females have it better than males and this probably evens out around 30 with males gaining clear advantages when women reach the end of the reproductive age. Although modern health, fitness and surgery can do wonders This temporary advantage can for some males lead to the frustration and resentment mentioned above and for some females to frustration and resentment in their 30s.

tbh I think most of this simply has to be recognized. There is not much one can do about it, certainly not on a legal level.

[Channel4s-JonSnow]

One theory that tends to come up as a problem when it comes to relationships is that men and women both have different mating strategies. The idea is that men are polygamous, they will try and get with as many women as they can, only settling when they don't think they can do much better or as a way of keeping hold of someone. Women are considered hypergamous, so they will stay with one guy, but will always be on the lookout for someone of higher value and jump ship when the opportunity arrives.

There is some truth in that, especially when it comes to men. Hypergamy isn't something I buy into although women won't generally date below their own social status unlike men. Its a concept that poisons a lot of these guys thinking though. 

It certainly gives these men a pretty poor view of relationships and marriage which they see as disadvantageous. 

But as jo stated men and women both want different things at different points in their lives. And those who are more attractive will act far differently to those who aren't.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

On 3/5/2017 at 5:43 AM, mankytoes said:

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.

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.

 

It isn't an either/or, but it seems insensitive or ignorant (and I'm not putting these on you, I would never do that to someone I don't know, these are labels I would only put on myself) to advocate for men's rights, when men are typically negotiating from a position of power. I think things can get better, but I don't view those as men's rights. For example, I hear a lot about the democratic party has forgotten white working class voters--I don't think the issue should be viewed this way. The solution seems to be: help the working class, but careful attention has to be paid to marginalized groups in this process because they potentially still end up on the short end of things.

So when I say I would rather stick to helping the marginalized, it's my attempt to say--if we begin advocating for the powerful, then the marginalized likely get lost in the process.

Also, I do mix gender, race, class--they are three distinct things, but I find it difficult to talk about one without the other. I have tried to since keep this on topic of gender.

As to your question of my advantage and the divorce courts: if I did not have continual financial support funding my excellent family attorney, then I don't know if I could have kept my son. This is a significant issue, but it's far more complicated than just this. We get back into a discussion about class here. If a man and women without much money divorce, who is likely to get the kids? You have to have money in our system to have access to Child Family Investigators, psychologists who do intensive investigations of the family to see which home will be the best fit--and those things cost thousands of dollars aside from the lawyer fees. Justice does not favor the poor, but again, I see this as not a gender issue, but an issue of class. That's another reason I dropped it here.

[Centrist Simon Steele]

23 hours 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 feel like the assumption is that all men want sex at all times, and women do not, so therefore they hold the cards. I think this doesn't make sense, and it is too generalizing by far. Sex? I can take it or leave it. But this viewpoint does seem to exist out there that sex is only stopped by women, and while I agree it's problematic at its core, I think it is worth exploring why people feel this way. I know articles and essays have discussed the nature of U.S. society that leads men to think if they're not thinking about sex every 4 seconds, then they are not emotionally healthy. This kind of information has to be particularly damaging on a subconscious level to men and women.

[Savannah]

9 hours ago, Mikael said:

This again. 

Also, the proportion of men acting like the woman should be the primary care giver is equal to the proportion of women acting like the man should be the primary care giver? 

 

If it's not ok  to expect women to take care of the babies
then it's really not ok to expect that of men either.

I'd say we should expect that of both parents of course.

Still, what communities should aim for is well functioning families as whole instead of focusing on the genitals of caregivers. 

[Swordfish]

On 3/4/2017 at 9:58 AM, Simon Steele said:

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.

Why?  What is the impetus to move past the fact that you came from a stable family?  And how would that even work?

That seems like a fairly extreme interpretation of leveling the playing field.