mankytoes

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

402 posts in this topic

31 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

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.

Huh? 

Simon is saying, I think, that as a result of his own background, if he were to tell members of various minority groups to just "get past" the fact that Simon has come from a background of relative privileges in certain areas would be missing the point of privilege. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Simon Steele said:

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.

Most power may be in the hands of men, but most men aren't in positions of power. Again, look at the specific issues I've raised. Are homeless men in a position of power? A lot of feminist discourse is about the minority of people who are in positions of power. I'm more interested here in the majority of people who aren't.

I'm not saying this is your point, but it's like, her in England, when people say "white men can't complain, look at all the top positions they have, like in politics and the judiciary". To a working class white boy, that's laughable. They have far less in common with the overwhelmingly privately educated ruling class than a black girl who goes to a top private school. I know it's different in different countries. But if you openly say to people "we aren't going to prioritise this issue because of the colour of your skin", however well meaning you are, you are not going to get their support.

I agree, I don't think I am advocating for the powerful. I think few of the issues I have raised effect mainly powerful men. And I'm sure you'd agree men can be marginalised too.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Swordfish said:

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.

 

I need to move past ignoring my position of privilege and acting like that has nothing to do with where I am. The whole "anyone can pull him/herself up by the bootstraps" thing is easy for someone like me to believe, because my bootstraps were kind of pulled up a long time ago. Some people need extra help due to the systemic pressures levied against them, and that's what I'm trying to say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, TerraPrime said:

Huh? 

Simon is saying, I think, that as a result of his own background, if he were to tell members of various minority groups to just "get past" the fact that Simon has come from a background of relative privileges in certain areas would be missing the point of privilege. 

 

Thank you--and I think this happens a lot, when privileged groups get really angry about minority groups trying to assert their own rights. Black Lives Matter is a clear example of this. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the Men's rights movement and how they think feminism has failed them while being utterly complete shits:

They're complete shits.

Furthermore, the myth that men have to feel like they need to go after anything, fuck all the things, should be open to having sex all the time and that sex with women is the only way they can have intimacy is the precise problem that so many men have. So declaring that women have all the control in sexual encounters as far as deciding frames the entire thing in a bad light from the getgo! Let's unask the question and step back.

  • Why are US men (and it is US men; other cultures do not behave like this) convinced that it is a numbers game?
  • Why do they largely not care who they fuck?
  • Why are they only concerned with fucking?

All of this presupposes that men are supposed to want to fuck all the time, with as many women as they can. And that is natural and right and proper, and if you aren't like that, you aren't a real man. Similarly, it ALSO presupposes that if you're a woman you have to be selective and look for nurturers and make sure that they have money, and sex is basically only used as a lure. And if you're a woman who wants to have sex with a lot of people? You're considered a slut or a whore, despite this being precisely what men are told they should actually want

All of this is bad. Every single part of it. And none of it is because of men's natural polygamous nature (which isn't true anyway - statistically whoever is dependent financially in the relationship is more likely to cheat) or that women don't like sex - it's because our culture teaches men that their self-worth is dictated not by how good of a father they are or how good of a husband they are, but by how many women they've fucked. And women are taught that they need to resist, and that they need to be picky, and no one will want to be with them long term if they've been around or experienced. Men are taught that they cannot be vulnerable or intimate except with women, and except in sexual situations. Women are taught that this is how men are. Men are taught to hide their weakness and thus are THREE TIMES MORE LIKELY TO KILL THEMSELVES. How is their means of dealing with things working for them?

So yeah, the MRA shitbirds are rejecting feminism because they don't understand it. They demonize the women that reject them while simultaneously going into a situation that would be far better served by actually getting to know them. They objectify women largely not to get laid, but because this allows them to bond with other men and have some level of brotherhood and intimacy. And it makes them happy, because they aren't even allowed to articulate what they're missing or why. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:
  • Why are US men (and it is US men; other cultures do not behave like this) convinced that it is a numbers game?
  • Why do they largely not care who they fuck?
  • Why are they only concerned with fucking?

Not sure how you came to this conclusion. I haven't done a ton of travelling and whatnot, but that strikes me more as a young men issue as much as it might be a U.S. men issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Not sure how you came to this conclusion. I haven't done a ton of travelling and whatnot, but that strikes me more as a young men issue as much as it might be a U.S. men issue.

Per the above conversation, it's not a young men thing; UK men use tinder differently than US men, as an example. Flings and the like are very different in different parts of Europe compared to the US as well. Prostitution is differently stigmatized. Heck, how Canadians use tinder is different!

A lot of it comes strongly from the US puritanical views on nudity and the machismo views on violence, which are decidedly far different than they are in other parts of the world. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Kalbear said:

Per the above conversation, it's not a young men thing; UK men use tinder differently than US men, as an example. Flings and the like are very different in different parts of Europe compared to the US as well. Prostitution is differently stigmatized. Heck, how Canadians use tinder is different!

A lot of it comes strongly from the US puritanical views on nudity and the machismo views on violence, which are decidedly far different than they are in other parts of the world. 

Do you have anything to back this up? The overall statistics show women swipe right roughly 18% of the time and for men its closer to 45% of the time which is a massive difference. If there are any stats demonstrate there are differences in different countries I couldn't find them. 

Yes the US has certain views on sex which are not quite the same as in say Europe but on the whole I've not seen anything that suggests that the above  described male behaviour is unusual in any way in terms of geography or even throughout history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you are conflating pick up artists with "men's rights activists". What I gather from the latter is that they have typically been burned by divorce laws; it is not pimply nerds that cannot get laid but men around middle age. As divorce rules and laws are rather different among countries I have no clear opinion but it seems that in the US in ca. 85% custody goes to the mother. I guess in most of these cases there will be an arrangement that the father will still have frequent contact but there are fathers basically denied contact with their children which must be horrible.

However, I am strongly opposed to normalizing divorce and treating stable families as a "privilege", implying that it might not hurt to have less strong and stable families if this also hurts "male privilege" or makes people more equal (obviously everyone gets hurt by most divorces). This would be clearly throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

I am convinced that we still lack a postrevolutionary sexual ethics. That's why we seem to be in such a mess, e.g. with some data showing that rape and assault have actually declined in the last decades while others claim that we live in a "rape culture".

As someone with traditionalist leanings, I doubt that a postrevolutionary ethics is possible that is both consistent and good for almost everyone. (Of course I also think that it would probably be mostly morally wrong, regardless of consistency but this is not the point here.) I am skeptical about the biologistic claims about polygamous tendencies etc. but there can hardly be any doubt that humans (made from "crooked timber" as Kant famously put it) are rather fallible wrt to sexual and romantic relations. It is also not by accident that almost all societies (especially but not only stable and "civilized" ones) had and have fairly strict rules and taboos around sex and relationships. It is plausible  that societally enforced monogamy for most people is a "deal" benefitting almost everyone because it restricts the polygamous tendencies and makes sure that almost everyone can have a LTR partner. (In polygamous (usually polygynist) societies one usually had a considerable number of frustrated men without any marriage prospects that have to be used up in war (preferably to get an excess of women for sex slaves) or as slaves (preferably eunuchs to guard harems))

Replacing all sexual mores with "consent" and some underage restrictions does seem rather feeble but fortunately some core of more traditional mores seems to stick around (i.e. cheating is still regarded wrong by most people in most circumstances) But they can hardly be consistently enforced (even less legally) with no basis. So putting aside the question if there could be broad movement back towards more traditional morality because this seems rather unlikely, I see only a few points where this touches "men's rights": Divorce law and court decisions that seem to disfavor men at least statistically in some countries. Paternity: It should be made impossible that men can be forced to raise and pay for "cuckoo kids". And abortion: While I doubt that it is legally possible to prevent a woman from having an abortion if the father does not consent, I think that it should be, it is his child as well as hers. (Ideally there should be no abortions at all except in rare medically justified cases but this horse has already bolted, I am afraid.)

(By traditional morality I do emphatically not mean double standards. The "rake" or Don Juan might have been secretly admired by men but he was considered a bad guy whereas today we can hardly condemn the rake as long as he "only" seduces because the women "fall for him" and consent to his advances.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Without googling, I'm gonna guess that the woman has somehow tricked the guy into getting pregnant, must be super common ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Jo498 said:

I think you are conflating pick up artists with "men's rights activists". What I gather from the latter is that they have typically been burned by divorce laws; it is not pimply nerds that cannot get laid but men around middle age. As divorce rules and laws are rather different among countries I have no clear opinion but it seems that in the US in ca. 85% custody goes to the mother. I guess in most of these cases there will be an arrangement that the father will still have frequent contact but there are fathers basically denied contact with their children which must be horrible.

However, I am strongly opposed to normalizing divorce and treating stable families as a "privilege", implying that it might not hurt to have less strong and stable families if this also hurts "male privilege" or makes people more equal (obviously everyone gets hurt by most divorces). This would be clearly throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

I am convinced that we still lack a postrevolutionary sexual ethics. That's why we seem to be in such a mess, e.g. with some data showing that rape and assault have actually declined in the last decades while others claim that we live in a "rape culture".

As someone with traditionalist leanings, I doubt that a postrevolutionary ethics is possible that is both consistent and good for almost everyone. (Of course I also think that it would probably be mostly morally wrong, regardless of consistency but this is not the point here.) I am skeptical about the biologistic claims about polygamous tendencies etc. but there can hardly be any doubt that humans (made from "crooked timber" as Kant famously put it) are rather fallible wrt to sexual and romantic relations. It is also not by accident that almost all societies (especially but not only stable and "civilized" ones) had and have fairly strict rules and taboos around sex and relationships. It is plausible  that societally enforced monogamy for most people is a "deal" benefitting almost everyone because it restricts the polygamous tendencies and makes sure that almost everyone can have a LTR partner. (In polygamous (usually polygynist) societies one usually had a considerable number of frustrated men without any marriage prospects that have to be used up in war (preferably to get an excess of women for sex slaves) or as slaves (preferably eunuchs to guard harems))

Replacing all sexual mores with "consent" and some underage restrictions does seem rather feeble but fortunately some core of more traditional mores seems to stick around (i.e. cheating is still regarded wrong by most people in most circumstances) But they can hardly be consistently enforced (even less legally) with no basis. So putting aside the question if there could be broad movement back towards more traditional morality because this seems rather unlikely, I see only a few points where this touches "men's rights": Divorce law and court decisions that seem to disfavor men at least statistically in some countries. Paternity: It should be made impossible that men can be forced to raise and pay for "cuckoo kids". And abortion: While I doubt that it is legally possible to prevent a woman from having an abortion if the father does not consent, I think that it should be, it is his child as well as hers. (Ideally there should be no abortions at all except in rare medically justified cases but this horse has already bolted, I am afraid.)

(By traditional morality I do emphatically not mean double standards. The "rake" or Don Juan might have been secretly admired by men but he was considered a bad guy whereas today we can hardly condemn the rake as long as he "only" seduces because the women "fall for him" and consent to his advances.)

Jo,

What is your take on this Mississippi Legislator's position that we shouldn't make Domestic Violence a grounds for Divorce in Mississippi because the State should be about protecting families and marriage, not divorce:

http://mississippitoday.org/2017/02/28/domestic-violence-as-grounds-for-divorce-killed-by-committee-chair/

I'm sure most people, after being beaten bloody by their spouse are really thinking "how can I save my marriage and continue to expose my children to this wonderfully violent person".

:(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Mikael said:

Without googling, I'm gonna guess that the woman has somehow tricked the guy into getting pregnant, must be super common ;)

That would be ludicrous then.

Good luck proving the guy got tricked instead of him being the trickster. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Mikael said:

Without googling, I'm gonna guess that the woman has somehow tricked the guy into getting pregnant, must be super common ;)

I think it happens much more than is ever really mentioned. I'm not saying its widespread but I've certainly seen it far too many times to think its incredibly rare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

I think it happens much more than is ever really mentioned. I'm not saying its widespread but I've certainly seen it far too many times to think its incredibly rare.

If you don't want to get a woman pregnant... wear a condom and use it properly.  This isn't rocket science otherwise, guess what, you've assumed the risk.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

If you don't want to get a woman pregnant... wear a condom and use it properly.  This isn't rocket science otherwise, guess what, you've assumed the risk.    

Yes totally. The difference is in longer term relationships where I guess different methods of contraception are relied upon more often. People tend to stop using condoms after a while, thats just how it is. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Channel4s-JonSnow said:

Yes totally. The difference is in longer term relationships where I guess different methods of contraception are relied upon more often. People tend to stop using condoms after a while, thats just how it is. 

 

Then... the people making these choices are assuming the risk of pregnancy and the responsibility therefrom if the pregnancy is carried to term and a child is born.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Then... the people making these choices are assuming the risk of pregnancy and the responsibility therefrom if the pregnancy is carried to term and a child is born.

I also agree with this. However that doesn't mean that its morally fine for a woman to 'forget' to take contraception as a way to get pregnant, without consulting the guy. The risk is obviously there, but that doesn't make her actions correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Outside of rap songs, I've never even heard it discussed. Maybe societies where marriage is seen as some kind of achievement there could be an incentive, but it still seems like a very stupid idea. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Mikael said:

Without googling, I'm gonna guess that the woman has somehow tricked the guy into getting pregnant, must be super common ;)

No, that's not what Jo supposedly meant. The corresponding German term refers to cases where the husband of the mother is not the biological father of her child, often unknowingly so. Some court rulings over here have posited that these men must pay child support for chilren born during their marriage that aren't biologically theirs, even after a paternity test. It seems to be this what Jo is opposed to (and I admit that ruling seems dubious to me, too)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.