Men. Men. Men.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 hours ago, Eggegg said:

All I'm seeing is someone using the term 'Whitesplaining' without irony. 

The point was that men don't feel like they are benefiting from the unjust system any more than women are. By using terms like Male Privilege and pushing a narrative that mens lives are simply easier than women's you end up turning off a whole generation of people from those arguments. 

If someone wants to discuss how male rates of suicide far exceed those of women, or how males are far more likely to be victims of violent crime, or how how 92% of fatalities from workplace accidents are men, and in general have shorter lives than women,  then the appropriate response is to try and understand why those things are happening and look to do something about it. The inappropriate response is to Week did upthread and to shout it down by talking about the small minority of men in top level CEO positions, as if that means all mens problems are irrelevant. 

This shouldn't be about who's team are you on, I think everyone is wanting the same outcomes.

Eggegg,

Do you deny that, historically, being male has provided more rights and privileges to those who are male regardless of whether or not they are “average men” or men of power?

[Eggegg]

11 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Eggegg,

Do you deny that, historically, being male has provided more rights and privileges to those who are male regardless of whether or not they are “average men” or men of power?

No, undoubtably there were and still are some advantages to being male. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 minute ago, Eggegg said:

No, undoubtably there were and still are some advantages to being male. 

Indeed, which is why I have a difficult time having sympathy for the “average man” who gets upset about feminism and empowering women.  They are ignoring the facts to asuage their own egos and wounded sense of entitlement.

Why should such ignorance be acknowledged instead of corrected?

[Eggegg]

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Indeed, which is why I have a difficult time having sympathy for the “average man” who gets upset about feminism and empowering women.  They are ignoring the facts to asuage their own egos and wounded sense of entitlement.

Why should such ignorance be acknowledged instead of corrected?

Because of the assumptions it makes, that having privileges means you have advantages in every single area of life. Actually men have a number of disadvantages compared to women. I mentioned some above, many that include dying a lot which isn't very pleasant. 

I think everyone is hoping for a fair and equitable society, where being born a certain way doesn't affect your chances in life. But that means you also need to listen to the problems of men as well, seeing as they make up half of everyone on the planet. 

Your attitude appears to be that because throughout history men have had a number of privileges, and small number of elite men have had an unequal share of the pot, that the 'average man' deserves zero sympathy. I think that is a terrible attitude to have and its been displayed over and over and over in this thread. 

And its exactly the reason you get so many men railing against feminism. Because men want equality for everyone as much as women and that means being listened to equally and treated equally when they feel there is a problem. 

 

[mormont]

2 hours ago, mankytoes said:

I'm not saying my knowledge isn't at all flawed, but I've read books on Japanese history, written by Japanese people, that extensively discuss seppuku. I have the information to discuss it, and saying I don't because of my skin colour just sounds racist.

To be fair, I can understand someone interpreting things that way, but that's an example of why shorthand such as 'whitesplaining' can be unhelpful.

If you happened to be white or part-white but had been raised in Japan, for example, clearly you'd have less distance from the issue than someone who was ethnically Japanese but had been born and raised in a US family with few or no cultural links to Japan. So it's not necessarily skin colour that is being complained about when someone uses the term 'whitesplaining', though as I say the name is unhelpful in that regard.

That said: that's not the case here. You are, as far as I can see, not someone who has any first-hand knowledge of Japanese culture, and to be fair to you, you are not claiming to be.  Reading books is fine but has its limitations, as any anthropologist will tell you.

2 hours ago, mankytoes said:

The opinion I gave has been given by many Japanese people. Honestly, when it comes to Japan, it's usually white people getting offended on their behalf, and that's pretty patronising.

Fair enough, but Terra is not white.

2 hours ago, mankytoes said:

 Japanese people I've met love discussing their culture- and yes, they've corrected me and educated me on aspects. They have never suggested I should back off because of my skin colour.

I'm sure that's true, but it appears to me to be supporting the idea that your understanding is imperfect, rather than refuting it.

Your other comments are not something that will be addressed further in this thread.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

35 minutes ago, Eggegg said:

Because of the assumptions it makes, that having privileges means you have advantages in every single area of life. Actually men have a number of disadvantages compared to women. I mentioned some above, many that include dying a lot which isn't very pleasant. 

I think everyone is hoping for a fair and equitable society, where being born a certain way doesn't affect your chances in life. But that means you also need to listen to the problems of men as well, seeing as they make up half of everyone on the planet. 

Your attitude appears to be that because throughout history men have had a number of privileges, and small number of elite men have had an unequal share of the pot, that the 'average man' deserves zero sympathy. I think that is a terrible attitude to have and its been displayed over and over and over in this thread. 

And its exactly the reason you get so many men railing against feminism. Because men want equality for everyone as much as women and that means being listened to equally and treated equally when they feel there is a problem. 

 

A question, is the “average man’s” subjective perception that he is “oppressed” by feminism more important than the objective point that such is simply not the case?

[Eggegg]

2 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

A question, is the “average man’s” subjective perception that he is “oppressed” by feminism more important than the objective point that such is simply not the case?

Does the average man think he is oppressed by feminism? Am I saying that men are oppressed by feminism? I've no idea where you are getting that.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 minute ago, Eggegg said:

Does the average man think he is oppressed by feminism? Am I saying that men are oppressed by feminism? I've no idea where you are getting that.

I’m pointing out that if the “average man” perceives himself to be “oppressed” by feminism and joines the neo-nazi alt-right as a result why should the “average man’s” fundamental misperception of reality be coddled or indulged instead of correct for being wrong?

[Eggegg]

5 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I’m pointing out that if the “average man” perceives himself to be “oppressed” by feminism and joines the neo-nazi alt-right as a result why should the “average man’s” fundamental misperception of reality be coddled or indulged instead of correct for being wrong?

What is the reality you are describing?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

19 minutes ago, Eggegg said:

What is the reality you are describing?

That, in reality, the “average man” is in no way “oppressed” by feminism regardless of the “average man’s” feelings on that topic.

[Eggegg]

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

That, in reality, the “average man” is in no way “oppressed” by feminism regardless of the “average man’s” feelings on that topic.

I'm not saying they are. I don't know what point you are trying to make here.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

7 minutes ago, Eggegg said:

I'm not saying they are. I don't know what point you are trying to make here.

That you hypothetical “average man’s” should not be indulged because they are not based in reality.

[Eggegg]

2 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

That you hypothetical “average man’s” should not be indulged because they are not based in reality.

Do men have any problems worth discussing and do you believe those problems are being listened to?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

4 minutes ago, Eggegg said:

Do men have any problems worth discussing and do you believe those problems are being listened to?

Isolated to males?  And that don’t apply to everyone?  Very few.

[Eggegg]

4 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Isolated to males?  And that don’t apply to everyone?  Very few.

So the problems I mentioned about suicide, violent crimes, workplace deaths, life expectancy, underperformance in education? Just not really relevant?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

3 minutes ago, Eggegg said:

So the problems I mentioned about suicide, violent crimes, workplace deaths, life expectancy, underperformance in education? Just not really relevant?

Those problems are not isolated to males.

[Eggegg]

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Those problems are not isolated to males.

 Males are MASSIVELY over represented in those issues. So yes they are.

[DanteGabriel]

1 hour ago, Eggegg said:

Do men have any problems worth discussing and do you believe those problems are being listened to?

Of course these problems should be discussed. But with a firm understanding that equal rights for women in no way oppresses men. I don't see how this is hard or why you are trying to mischaracterize Scot's simple argument that men who think feminism has oppresses them should be corrected, not coddled.

[Eggegg]

1 minute ago, DanteGabriel said:

Of course these problems should be discussed. But with a firm understanding that equal rights for women in no way oppresses men. I don't see how this is hard or why you are trying to mischaracterize Scot's simple argument that men who think feminism has oppresses them should be corrected, not coddled.

Probably because, I wasn't saying that feminism is oppressing men. Thats the mischaracterisation here. 

Look, this is a thread 'supposedly' to talk about mens issues and rights, and what has mostly happened has been that a number of posters have come in with sarcastic comments, dismissively call men fragile or playing the 'whataboutism' game for discussing issues that predominantly affect men. There is a high level of hypocrisy here, imagine a feminism thread where someone went in, told women they were being fragile and tried to deflect the topic every time it was one they didn't want to talk about. I'm in fact sure its probably happened, but it wouldn't be tolerated. Why should it be different if its men? Because men are supposedly stronger and should 'man up'?? Because men don't have anything to complain about ( Which seems to be an insidious underlying belief behind many peoples comments so far)

I'll say it again, if we are going to be pushing for an equal and fair society, then we need to highlight all the areas where our current society is unfair and try and fix them, not excluding some issues because they don't fit the nice tidy narrative. 



 

[Larry of the Lawn]

52 minutes ago, Eggegg said:

Probably because, I wasn't saying that feminism is oppressing men. Thats the mischaracterisation here. 

Look, this is a thread 'supposedly' to talk about mens issues and rights, and what has mostly happened has been that a number of posters have come in with sarcastic comments, dismissively call men fragile or playing the 'whataboutism' game for discussing issues that predominantly affect men. There is a high level of hypocrisy here, imagine a feminism thread where someone went in, told women they were being fragile and tried to deflect the topic every time it was one they didn't want to talk about. I'm in fact sure its probably happened, but it wouldn't be tolerated. Why should it be different if its men? Because men are supposedly stronger and should 'man up'?? Because men don't have anything to complain about ( Which seems to be an insidious underlying belief behind many peoples comments so far)

I'll say it again, if we are going to be pushing for an equal and fair society, then we need to highlight all the areas where our current society is unfair and try and fix them, not excluding some issues because they don't fit the nice tidy narrative. 



 

The woe-is-me-martyr stuff is getting old.  If you want to talk about suicide rates and workplace accidents no one is stopping you. Literally no one here is saying that men's issues aren't worth discussing or that they have nothing to complain about.  

I'm a man and I work in a job that has left me with some pretty serious work caused health problems at a young age.    I'd bet my profession is 95% male in the US.  Male privilege doesn't mean that I'm not affected by breathing in silica dust.  It doesn't mean that suicide isn't a social issue that affects men.  Why dont you actually talk about all this shit you say you want to talk about instead of arguing about men not being taken seriously or denying that things like male privilege exist.  It's difficult to engage with you in more substantive discourse when you're just throwing out strawmen about how no one here thinks men have any problems specific to being male.