MOD NOTE: Please note the following part of the forum rules:
The initial OP posted below covers it well enough: the premise of this thread is that men's issues exist. Don't bother posting if you don't believe there is such a thing.
Here's hoping this isn't considered too redundant. I've noticed that our existing threads about sexism tend to get bogged down in Oppression Olympics or else wildly derailed, so I thought I'd make a thread specifically to talk about discrimination issues that disproportionately affect men.
No Oppression Olympics here, okay? No saying "But that's not important because women suffer X which is worse!" And no discussing these issues purely in terms of how much better women have it. Okay? If the discussion cannot meaningfully proceed without making a comparison to male and female treatment, that's fine, but on the whole I want this thread to be about how men are harmed by society and how we can fix it. Issues like:
- The male-only draft (in countries that have one)
- Circumcision
- Cavalier attitudes toward men's pain and sickness, AKA "Walk it off!"
- The Success Myth, which defines a man's desirability by his material success. Also The Myth of Men Not Being Hot, which denies that men can be sexually attractive as male beings.
- Sexual abuse of men.
- Family law.
- General attitudes that men are dangerous or untrustworthy.
I could go on making the list, but I think you get the idea.
Despite what you might have heard about feminists not caring about men, it's not true. I care about men. Patriarchy sucks for them as much as it sucks for women, in a lot of ways. So I'm putting my keyboard where my mouth is and making a thread for us to all care about men.
Also? If you're male and think of something as a men's issue, by golly that makes it a men's issue fit for inclusion in this thread. I might disagree with you as to the solution, but as a woman I'm not going to tell you you have no right to be concerned about it. No "womansplaining" here.
Edited by nombretomado on Dec 15th 2019 at 5:19:34 AM
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
I've said it before, and I'll say it again, people like that aren't radical feminists. There is nothing radical about replacing an old authority with a new one that's no different, just as there is nothing radical about all the slave revolts in history in which the slaves made their former masters slaves.
Here's the video
if you're morbidly curious.
Some of it's true. Some of it isn't (he mentions a "threat" by a used called ImNotMRABut, although reading the comment in context, it's clearly not a threat. If it was, AVFM would've deleted the comment and/or banned the commentor). Some is exaggerated (the Thomas Hall article he refers to was already edited to remove passages encouraging violent behaviour).
Also, this is the second time I've seen manboobz refer to the SCUM Manifesto ... and he doesn't seem to know what it is. There's a good reason why AVFM decried that and not Basic Instinct (and it's a Wall Banger that I even have to write that, since basic research would've told MB what he needed to know). Basic Instinct was not a work that promoted a Gendercide against men, written by a noted misandrist who tried to kill Andy Warhol and two other men. The SCUM Manifesto was.
Plus, just read MB's tenth point. Tell me he doesn't sound every bit as much a ranting, confrontational brat as Elam (and I know you said to refrain from Ad Hominems, and I usually do, but come on, just look at it). I'm not as big a fan of AVFM as I used to be but at the very least, they report on current events and don't just complain about other people.
Yes indeed. I've had nothing but positive experiences talking to transpeople online (although I won't go into it too much because I think it'll sound like Some of My Best Friends Are X).
There was also a lot of controversy over a women's rights activist called Julie Bindel — a writer for the Guardian newspaper here in the UK — who made transphobic comments on Twitter earlier this year. I can also recall seeing an article written by her on the now-defunct (I believe) RadicalHub that supported transphobia.
Pronounced YAK-you-luss
About Solanas, be fair - the shootings weren't about any general hatred of men, but about Warhol and his buddies cheating her in a business deal. Also, there's a reasonably convincing (though not airtight) argument that the SCUM manifesto is satire, parodying beliefs used to justify misogyny with a particular emphasis on Freud's weirder stuff (see also, its references to 'pussy envy'). She was a paranoid schizophrenic, though, so her motivations are always going to be kind of fuzzy.
edited 21st Apr '13 1:20:06 AM by Iaculus
What's precedent ever done for us?
Solanas denied several times that the SCUM Manifesto was satire. It simply wasn't. Her motivations for killing were at least partly about misandry, even if other factors played a role. And she was one of the most influential feminists of her time, still being defended by NOW and others after her crimes, who is still considered as an example for feminism by many feminists. She is the living embodiment of what is wrong with feminism.
Pronounced YAK-you-luss
Yes, she denied it on several occasions, and confirmed it on several others. Hard to say whether she was pulling a Parody Retcon, whether her schizophrenia was acting up, or whether she was just dicking around - it's not uncommon for satirists to go 'yes, I was totally serious, you guys'. What grounds do you have for saying that the shootings were motivated by her hatred of men, by the way? The facts I've been able to find show that it was purely financial, if spiced up by her paranoia.
edited 21st Apr '13 2:35:07 AM by Iaculus
What's precedent ever done for us?
The facts that she did a book about killing men and money is not that good of a sole motivator to kill someone seem pretty strong for me. Being a shizophrenic maniac still puts the feminists who idolize or at least tolerate her in a pretty bad light.
Where did the word "schizophrenia" not happen? <_< You'd be amazed the u-turns and weirdness that can do to a base-line personality. Particularly if the person refuses their meds. And, she screams that kind of gal to me. 
Anybody who takes anything said or written in schizophrenic breaks deadly seriously is in trouble. <shrugs> And, a semi-stable altered state can last quite a few months... in which great or just plain weird things can occur. You always have to take whatever you get with a lot of salt. Even if it does turn out positive (which, that book? Didn't.) Reeks of paranoia and self-justification. <_< Which is par for the course for a leisurely decline over about 18 months.
edited 21st Apr '13 3:01:56 AM by Euodiachloris
By that definition, her statements about money as her motivation can't be taken seriously as well. There is as much reason to believe she did it only for the money as there is that she did it solely because of her hatred of men. I think it was both.
Pronounced YAK-you-luss
Financial motives for murder may not be morally justifiable, but they do happen. They happen one hell of a lot, actually, especially when you're a paranoid schizophrenic. Plus, your logic is getting pretty circular here. The SCUM Manifesto was not satire because she shot people. She shot people because of the SCUM Manifesto. Be honest, if Paul Elam was brought up on reckless assault charges tomorrow, would your first thought be 'it's because he hates women'?
As for being crazy and yet respected, you can be mentally ill and/or a horrible person and still produce works of value. Nietzche was a syphilis-addled wreck. Game theory, the linchpin of so many political and economic models, was dreamt up by a paranoid schizophrenic (John Nash, in case you're wondering). Too many authors to list were abusive towards their significant others.
What's precedent ever done for us?
Yup: many a murder has been kicked off by sudden destitution — or fear of future destitution. <shrugs> Think of all the murder-suicides you read about when either a mother or father faces financial ruin. <_< Happens in both genders, even if the triggers act a little differently (possibly down to socialisation).
Then you have the "if I bump my parents off: $$$$!" ones. Again, not gender-specific. But, blokes are more likely to do something like this, rather than try to make it look natural via poison. <shrugs>
edited 21st Apr '13 3:01:11 AM by Euodiachloris
edited 21st Apr '13 3:01:26 AM by Besserwisser
Pronounced YAK-you-luss
And even if you believe it's satire, I can't see any value in a book that's solely about killing people.
What's precedent ever done for us?
Classic for a reason. ^_^ Set the benchmark for slash-and-burn satire, really. 
edited 21st Apr '13 3:03:55 AM by Euodiachloris
Pronounced YAK-you-luss
On what it takes for feminists to call their own out, there's been a pretty vicious turf war between second-wave TERFs (trans-exclusive radical feminists) and third-wave feminists for a while now, with the recent Julie Burchill article being a particular hotspot. An example of one of the callouts from Jezebel. Also, the great intersectionality debate that spawned the womanist movement. Hell, a while back in this thread, Guest was calling out the feminist movement for being too divided. Can't have your cake and eat it, guys.
edited 21st Apr '13 3:10:00 AM by Iaculus
What's precedent ever done for us?
Someone still has to explain to me how and why the SCUM Manifesto was a good book. I have to retract my ealier statement, books about killing can be good. There even is the possibility to write good satire about killing people of the demographic most likely to be killed anyway. But given Solanas was a feminist, I kind of doubt that was her point. And there have been plenty of feminists who say similar things, without any satire.
OK, great, they are being more inclusive to transexuals. They still have to deal with a history of misandry.
Edit: Also, Jezebel? The woman who thought it's a good idea to basically rape your boyfriend? She has a lot to answer for and I'm not talking about trans-issues.
edited 21st Apr '13 3:11:22 AM by Besserwisser
Pronounced YAK-you-luss
So being a feminist automatically means that you believe in the extermination of mankind? Seriously, man, do you think all feminists are like this or something? Who are these 'plenty of feminists', anyway? Sources?
As for Jezebel, it's a magazine with multiple writers. I thought you were saying a couple of pages back that you couldn't hold A Voice For Men responsible for Paul Elam's views - why do that for Jezebel?
edited 21st Apr '13 3:15:29 AM by Iaculus
What's precedent ever done for us?
One schizophrenic writes something weird (which could have been malaimed satire — or just something written under the influence of chemistry gone wild), and you get your pants in a twist when some minority idiots without decent synaptic connections take it seriously?
Mate, the extremists are always idiots. <_< Whatever extreme they espouse. Sometimes, trying to slap them down just encourages them. Silence can mean a lot of things. Including "if we just ignore her, maybe she'll shut up in ten minutes? Belting her around the mouth did nothing last time..." Or, my personal favourite, "I'm seeing a silence which isn't there..." That's a good one. <_<
edited 21st Apr '13 3:25:52 AM by Euodiachloris
Pronounced YAK-you-luss
'Great' is a matter of personal taste. It has been read as an amusing takedown of the sexist assumptions inherent in Freud, for instance (penis envy, the Electra complex, and so on). As for this bit:
No one on AVFM was ever so reprehensible to not only condone rape but present it as a good idea.
I posted this a couple of pages back. Do I have to post it again?
But are these women asking to get raped?
In the most severe and emphatic terms possible the answer is NO, THEY ARE NOT ASKING TO GET RAPED.
They are freaking begging for it.
Damn near demanding it.
And all the outraged PC demands to get huffy and point out how nothing justifies or excuses rape won’t change the fact that there are a lot of women who get pummeled and pumped because they are stupid (and often arrogant) enough to walk though life with the equivalent of a I’M A STUPID, CONNIVING BITCH – PLEASE RAPE ME neon sign glowing above their empty little narcissistic heads.
edited 21st Apr '13 3:24:20 AM by Iaculus
What's precedent ever done for us?
The fact is that you go around and excuse this kind of behaviour, whereas MR As who do far less controversial stuff are painted as evil bastards. It's a Double Standard.
Good thing you left out the part where he explicitly states that rapists are as responsible for their crimes as any other criminal. What he does say is that women have a responsibility regarding her own actions and the implications that brings with it. He does so in a very provocative manner but that's still only an argument about tone. Very much different from an article actually advising women to put a finger in her boyfriends anus without his permission.
edited 21st Apr '13 3:33:46 AM by Besserwisser
What? Huh? Since when have I excused idiocy on either side?
Oh... I get it! Suddenly, I'm a femminst, now! Gosh, didn't realise my secular humanist egalitarian label had gone missing... Oh, yeah... but, I'm female. Must make me a feminist. Yup: forgot. My bad. <_<
edited 21st Apr '13 3:42:54 AM by Euodiachloris
Pronounced YAK-you-luss
Wait, did you seriously use the tone argument as a defence for 'I’M A STUPID, CONNIVING BITCH – PLEASE RAPE ME'? Seriously? I'm... I'm not sure I even have a response for that.
Tell me, Besserwesser, what does it take for you to call out the men's rights movement?
What's precedent ever done for us?
HGW XX/7
I don't think putting scornful inverted commas around the word " "victims" " paints him in an especially credible light, even leaving out the rest of it (which has its own issues).
edited 21st Apr '13 4:08:45 AM by Achaemenid
Schild und Schwert der Partei
See? Biased drivel be always biased drivel. <shrugs> Most of the time, you're better off shrugging and rolling your eyes than trying to get them to talk sense. Some horses are resistant to being shown water. Even if they patently need it.
And, I'm not just talking MRAs or feminists here, Besser. Just in case you were wondering and just to make my point clear as crystal. <_< Mate, you've got to try removing your selection bias sometime, you know. <hugs> Dunno if I'm the right person to try telling you that, though. -_- Probably not. <sighs>
edited 21st Apr '13 4:16:41 AM by Euodiachloris
Well, I did dig up this article
by Jack Donovan on the Spearhead, which contains an astonishing number of different flavours of transphobic fail. How did the mens-rights community react to that?
What's precedent ever done for us?