Sexism and Men's Issues

I have no damn clue what you guys are arguing about anymore.

@Kzickas

Bzzt! Fixed it for you. We need more gender neutral language up innis. Psst, remember when I entered this thread because of a discussion surrounding feminist efforts to make the same point? Guest, back me up here. It's misandry. Men don't deserve the dangerous, unreasonably hazardous jobs. No one does. If they have to be done, we need to approach them differently. It's an argument that will be made by parasites passing themselves off as MR As. Feminists fight the internal fight against the "all men are rapists" types and the "trans people are traitors and infiltrators" types (I've seen them fight this fight, and it is heated). We have to keep an eye on our own parasites, because they do exist, and hypothetically we want to own them movement so they don't.

For the record, feminism and anti-racism have done very well attaching them to related movements, such as those involving health, immigration, and labour. I don't think the MRM has much to lose from, say, pointing out how the coal industry chews up its workers and spits them out.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

*Sits back and twirls pantomime moustache, laughing in a Machiavellian manner*

Truthfully, Taoist, I don't remember when you entered the thread.

I'm not particularly well versed on safety regulations in the "death professions" but if I had to hazard a guess, safety is at the forefront (at least in first world operations) and at this point, due to the nature inherent in the work itself, the only major safety breakthroughs would be to replace everyone with robots.

We are having more and more robots, incidentally. Most jobs with high accident rates right now can only be done by humans or extremely advanced robots.

I raised coal because coal mining and plant operations are particularly nasty to the human beings around them. But that's me getting off topic, sorry.

Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.

Personal anecdote: I did and still do consider a career in mining. Most likely not coal mining, though.

edited 16th Apr '13 10:26:03 AM by Besserwisser

The actual mistake was dropping the word "other" the point being that as long as the pressure to be breadwinners exist they'll find other sacrifices that'll let them meet that obligation if physical danger is taken off the table.

I'm not sure what this is a response to. My point was that we need to stop teaching men that relationships with women are so important to their worth as a person that they can be held hostage to it.

possibly, but I've only ever seen it made by feminists.

Edit:

As for MRA olive branches: Feminist Critics was, while never being able to live up to it, founded as a place to engage with feminists about the problematic aspects of feminism with the goal of creating the possibility of cooperation. The rules still reflect that to a degree, like the more lenient commenting rules for feminists.

We-should-work-with-feminists threads are a regular occurence at r/mensrights. The majority tend to say it's impossible, but the desire is common and frequently demonstrated.

Glenn Sacks created a section of his blog intended to engage and work with feminists.

If you count the Good Men Project as MRA (some do, some don't) then there are several examples there, including at least one by a person identifying as both MRA and feminist.

edited 16th Apr '13 11:30:54 AM by Kzickas

I see "we should work with feminist" threads a lot in MRA sites/blogs/forums, always met with the same backhanded and poisonous negativity. Rarely do I see it extend beyond that. I'm not sure how many MRA activists or bloggers have open discussions with feminists, but I've found that it's honestly not that hard. Which is why I start head-scratching when I see the "feminists don't want to work with us" accusations.

I mean, it's possible that I've got lucky the four or five times I've done it, but . . . yeah.

Also, I may not be a brain surgeon, but I'm pretty sure that naming your site "Feminist Critics" is a good way to get your movement a stinkeye. That's like naming something "Abolitionist Critics"; even if your intentions are good, the name is a shot in your own foot.

It's also a kind of weird name because it sounds like they're engaging in feminist literary criticism or something, not criticising feminism itself.

What's precedent ever done for us?

I didn't say the men's rights movement farts rainbows, I said I'd seen more olive branches extended by them than the other way around. And flawed outreach attempts are better than none at all.

Maybe you have been lucky. Or maybe you've agreed just enough for them not to decide you secretly want to remove women's vote and turn all women into sex slaves.

Sure, some outreach attempts are better than doing nothing, but we should point out the flaws within those attempts.

And I don't know what that last part means. I've agreed enough?

Might want to take a look at the most recent University Of Toronto protest. Maybe it's not the best place for an open discussion but it certainly highlights the backlash from certain parties at the very idea of working with MRAs.

I hope you'll forgive me for going on a minor rant about feminism but there's something I've been wanting to say about it for a few days now; it seems like too many feminists are unwilling to admit that their movement has made mistakes. While I know MRAs are often stereotyped as being solely anti-feminism, I think it's more accurate to say that they'd just like feminism to take responsibility for when it has made mistakes about certain issues.

I don't want to say that "feminism is one of the few organisations that does this" — when faced with controversy, plenty of companies issue press releases boasting about their "huge success" — but I don't think the movement is winning anyone over by refusing to face up to what its done to certain issues in the past (the draft, family courts, domestic violence against men) and occasionally turning its head to those same issues today.

Let's also not forget the "Not all feminists are like that" attitude that basically stops most feminists from addressing problems within their own movement. Instead of looking inwards and rooting out/beating down the people that spout misandry, lies and misandric lies they basically defend them by saying that not all feminists are that way so it's okay. They then lash out at people who criticize feminism because of those misandrists instead of, again, tackling the misandrists themselves.

η β π

Video supplement of what Guest is talking about, assuming it hasn't been posted yet:

I think a big problem in feminism are so called "radical" feminists who preach the matriarchy over the patriarchy. They are poisonous to the movement and fail to realize that, in a hierarchical society like ours, equality, not a change of masters, is the most radical idea out there. That's why we must never preach the matriarchy. It is naught but a change of masters, and that is unacceptable.

Feminist niceness isn't, in my experience, a smooth function of agreement. There's a cut off where someone can agree just a bit more and be a great guy, or just a bit less and be the love child of Hitler and Stalin.

In a case of extremely good timing, given the discussion here, Genderratic just posted a good example of how to call out a feminist without making it about feminism as a whole: http://www.genderratic.com/p/2798/male-disposability-mary-p-koss-and-influencing-a-government-entity-to-erase-male-victims-of-rape/

Edit: I think all radical feminism is the problem. Separate but equal requires someone capable of judging whether different treatments are in fact equal, and there's no one I trust to.

edited 17th Apr '13 1:27:29 AM by Kzickas

I have my own issues with this. Which, again, stems from the messenger and not the message. Ferrell has some correct points, but he shot himself in the foot one time too many.

Then they're going about it in a way that's sadly ineffective, or to be frank, quite idiotic.

It's one thing to be critical of a movement. As I said, I have issues with feminists in some capacities as well. I've caught some on numerous occasions saying something that may have been correct factually, but misleading. For example, I've found that at my Univ, any talk at all about pornography is a real Berserk Button for the women (and gay men) in attendance. ^note I agree that the porn industry is horribly misogynist, and to be honest, damaging to the perception of women. However, I get the insinuation that many of them feel it's inherently so. Which I can't see being possible unless pornography is exclusive to men, and they accept that men are sexual beings and women aren't.

However, I've counted several times both here and on blogs where people just make statements which lack knowledge at best and are flat out misogynist at worst. For example, that one video series by the woman who equated Patriarchy theory to calling men sociopaths, which so many people on that blog agreed with. That entire argument was just silly strawmanning, but people were eating that shit up just because it discredited feminism. Unfortunately, it did this by way revisionist history, which is like criticizing Judaism through Holocaust denial.

There's several more examples, but you can basically call it everything that I've argued against in this thread from day one. It's one thing to care about mens' issues and to point out flaws in feminist activism. It's another thing to start trying to discredit every single argument made about sexism. I seriously cannot think of a single time an issue regarding male-to-female sexism has come up in the various threads that has not had one person within the usual suspects NOT counterargue it.

That's just not the way to do it.

edited 17th Apr '13 7:52:19 AM by KingZeal

As a note, last weeks lecture / protest had nothing to do with Warren Farrel. It was Dr. Paul Nathanson and Dr. Katherine Young doing a lecture called "From Misogyny & Misandry to Intersexual Dialogue".

From what I understand, invites were sent out to the student union / feminist groups in order to come and have an open discussion on the issues. They refused.

Apparently, he was the last speaker that was called to talk about mens' issues before this one.

Not making excuses for the feminists who refused to attend or to listen, but like I said, that was a shot in the foot.

Actually Farrell was in November last year. The last one was Janice Fiamengo and the most recent one was Paul Nathanson and Katherine K. Young.

I have more to say on your post but what's your issue with Farrell?

Like I said, some things he said were true, but the concept of "date fraud" for women who feign interest but don't mean it was a very, very dumb idea.

Like most people, I don't like having my time wasted either, but that was just startlingly insensitive.

Yeah... what about the guys who go on dates and mid-way decide that is was a bad idea and bail? Any less "fraud"?

Seriously: getting cold feet is allowable. But, people (and, I mean all types) need to learn how not to be prats about it. And, there are a lot of prats about.

edited 17th Apr '13 10:05:54 AM by Euodiachloris

There's no deception in that situation. The worst you're doing is not sharing information you don't have yourself at the time. If there is no intention to decive then something cannot possibly be considered fraud.

So, you can always tell if a girl is going flat out to defraud a guy rather than getting cold-feet mid-way because...?

I'm struggling to find any quotes about date fraud, except for the "before we called it 'rape', we called it 'exciting'" quote that was taken out of context at his protest.

Anyway, in response to your previous post, if you don't mind me saying so, Zeal, I think your view of men's issues is very narrow. Like the only sites that deal with them are A Voice For Men and this forum. It doesn't seem to acknowledge people like Erin Pizzey, Glenn Sacks, Nathanson & Young and, yes, Warren Farrell.

I seriously cannot think of a single time when sexist issues on these forums have come up in the various threads when they've been given a balanced view. Whether you admit it or not, Zeal, there have been some ugly double standards on display in those threads. As is often the case with men's issues, there's an overwhelming effort to ignore, dismiss, trivialise or even justify issues that face men ... even when they're the exact same ones that face women (or worse). Whereas if only people bothered to treat the issues affecting men and women equally, they'd be a lot more respectable.

Take this as an example; I'm Catholic and it's only now, with Pope Francis, that Catholicism is garnering back a bit of respect. He's acknowledged the child molestation problem, he's taken a stance on helping the poor and all-in-all, things are seeming a lot better than when Ratzinger was Pope. By facing up to the issues that the Church faced criticism for, it's done a world of good for Catholicism.

As a matter of fact, look at the gaming industry. Anita Sarkeesian makes the claim that gaming culture "is maintaining and reinforcing and normalizing a culture of sexism — where men who harass are supported by their peers and rewarded for their sexist attitudes and behaviors and where women are silenced, marginalized and excluded from full participation". The woman who was paid $158,000, had every gaming site support her (occasionally using sexist language against men themselves) and it was even claimed by Jim Sterling that because she faced abuse, she was immune to criticism.

Yet Anita only faced this criticism because she was biased (or refused to face criticism or had questionable money-making methods but the bias is what's important right now). Other women — Gabrielle Toledano, Christine Phelan, Janette Goering — spoke about gender issues and didn't face this "silence, marginalization and exclusion from full participation" that Anita discussed. Female Youtubers have criticised Anita and even one of her backers has criticised her for her refusal to answer criticism.

But if you were to read the mainstream articles or pieces about Anita on gaming sites, all you would hear would be a tale of a woman who has been victimised by those mean, mean boys on the internet. Or possibly about how horrible women have it, while men go ignored.

Treating issues that affect both sexes as if they only affect women is a men's issue in itself ... yet the problem you seem to have, Zeal, is you think calling feminists out on this is somehow a case of anti-feminism when it's actually a call for equality (which is why I have a hard time believing that "feminists really want equality" when they have such a difficult time making both sides of the argument). This is why there are so many "reactionary" responses to feminist articles and videos, such as Anita Sarkeesian ... but it's so much easier to just respond to the criticism with "how dare you undermine women's issues by talking about men!" than acknowledge that they're men's issues too. Feminism won't shatter just because feminists point out the flaws in their movement. It won't even undermine it; like Catholicism, it'll just make it stronger. More approachable. As it stands now, it's more like a child throwing a tantrum when it doesn't get its own way.

Now that's strawmanning. Would you mind elaborating on the revisionist history? As far as I can tell, it's patriarchy theory itself that is revisionist history.