Sexism and Men's Issues

That's one role far more dominated by men than heroes. Mooks.

I just said that we shouldn't be trying to act like this problem devalues men specifically, if we want to avoid oppression Olympics.

Because if that is the game we're playing, I'm prepared to play, but that is specifically supposed to be avoided in this thread.

edited 1st Sep '14 10:00:41 PM by KingZeal

What about not discussing how this, or any other issue in this thread for that matter, relate to women because this is the Men's Issues thread? You want to talk about women? Great. Take it to the other thread.

That game started long ago Zeal when a troper decided to audaciously question the negativity of expendability for men and then start claiming the trope was still somehow worse for women.

What's more,one of them thought amusing to rename the trope "Men Are Fighters,Women Are Loot" when it's more like "Men Are Obstacles,Women Are Goods".

While of course there may be a side effect,the main focus of that trope is clearly on the devaluing of men and boys.

As this is the "Sexism and Men's Issues" thread,it would be most prudent to keep looking at it from the angle instead of denying that just maybe there might be some disadvantage against men.

No, arguing that it's bad for men is one thing. Arguing that it's disadvantageous for men is oppression Olympics.

Saying who is more devalued than who is just starting the bullshit all over again.

edited 1st Sep '14 11:13:03 PM by KingZeal

You know I'm starting to think some of you don't actually come to this thread to discuss Men's Issues but instead to get in continuous fights about if men or women have it worse...

Now to try and tie things back to the actual topic. Does anyone have any information on the state of the anti-gender roles movement amongst men? It seems to be someone we're rather seriously lacking. Now many men do defy traditional gender roles, but it seems to be more an individual thing than a movement thing, so cases are looked at as one offs rather than a trend of growing dissatisfaction by men with the gender roles assigned to us.

It's not an organized movement, but so-called "herbivore men" in Japan would seem to fit that description. They are basically men who refuse to settle down and financially support a spouse and children, instead focusing on themselves and their own happiness, which I can only view as a good thing. I'd like to see a similar cultural shift in the West so that the expectation of men being the bread winner in relationships evaporates.

edited 2nd Sep '14 1:40:52 AM by Nysos

How about the negative population growth that may be resulting from that? Is that a good thing?

Eh, depends on how quickly robots can start picking up the slack.

No, but that's more of a long-term thing that will have to be addressed in some other way, not by trying to force a return to a regressive traditionalist mindset that views men as disposable workhorses. (which is what the Japanese government is trying to do with their incentives)

That seems a bit "baby out with the bath water" to me. I'd like to hope that such men would be able to find equal partners who want a relationship with them in part because they don't conform to the gender stereotypes. But such a movement had to appear in Japan, one of the few bits of the developed world where female adherence to gender roles is still incredibly strong.

If such a moment spred to the west I don't think it would bring about the negative population growth it does in Japan, because such men wouldn't need to reject women, they could simply reject women who try to force them into a traditional gender role.

It's just crazy isn't it? We've got men rejecting gender roles in one place and women rejecting them in another. Yet such movements would do wonders for each other if they both happened in the same place.

Still it's very interesting to see.

Actually, the situation in Japan is caused just s much by women rejecting gender roles as men rejecting them. Less women are willing to be housewives or to put up with sexist dating ideals. Also, part of the Herbivore movement had been hijacked by men who prefer fictional women to real ones because real women are far more opinionated these days and unwilling to put up with shenanigans. That's a minority of men, mind you, but still worth noting.

Another reason this is unlikely to happen in the US is because Japan had no religious or strong social taboos against abortion.

I'm not sure I agree. The herbivore movement is a reaction to the economic downturn in the 90's and men's disillusionment with their traditional gender role as the bread winner. It's not a reaction to women in Japan adopting more feminist ideals, or because they are becoming more "opinionated" - where are you getting that from? Herbivore men are actually looked down upon for not living up to their "responsibilites" by opting out of relationships.

The GMP is US-based, I think. Pretty much every dude their (who writes an article) hates being expected to be the sole breadwinner (and instead shares the load with their wives) and they all seem to be present and active fathers to their kids. I kinda think that is anti-gender role. Maybe not. I'd say that men being either the sole leader and breadwinner of the house or completely absent are the 2 normal male roles, so being a breadwinner along with your wife and being actively (rather than passively) involved in raising your sprogs is definitely going against the norm.

As for the article I posted- male disposability is a definite issue that hurts dudes. It's split into four pieces. A long but good read. Dudes are selected for certain back-breaking roles cos dudes tend to be (and the key term is "tend to be") stronger and more durable than dames, so picking them for this or that role is definitely misandry.

Also- more of the population is female? News to me, I thought the ratio was something like 3 or 4 boys born for every 1 girl born. Then again, something like 4 times as many dudes are killed per year than women, that might tip the scales.

As I said, a ''minority of men' in Japan have jumped aboard that movement for that reason. Not a large number, but enough to for a pattern, no matter how minor.

You're still trying to slant the argument. Please stop doing that.

edited 2nd Sep '14 5:04:20 AM by KingZeal

No, the sex ratio at birth (defined as #boys/#girls) is about 1.05 in Western countries. Even in countries like India and China, where selective abortion occurs, it doen't go over 1.2. However, selective infanticide does lead to populations that skewed.

Zeal, please stop trying to make things all about women, it's the Men's Issues topic.

I have to agree with Khuzdlin, everyone, stop entering any discussion about how something disadvantages men only to mention how it disadvantages women more. It might be good a few times, but right now it is only annoying.

What?!

First of all, that isn't what I did. I was correcting a statement that seemed incorrect regarding the current issues in Japan.

Second of all, as for Odin's statement, whenever men being picked for certain jobs becomes a point of topic, there's typically a slant that needs to be avoided. It's not just the fact that men are picked for certain jobs that are the problem, but the conditions of the work as well.

It's certainly misandry to disregard the lives of boys and men for work. But, going into the reasons WHY they're picked for the job is slanting the discussion in a direction that we need to avoid.

I'm not saying that we shouldn't talk about how bad this crap is for boys. By all means, we should. But, there are specific leanings we should be careful about.

edited 2nd Sep '14 6:29:11 AM by KingZeal

Learning the reasons why something is as it is is important if we need to cut that off, it might not be an absolute necessity, but it is a big boon, we, preferably, should not avoid talking about that.

What we, however, should avoid is stuff like what Telwyrth is complaining right above.

I understand your concern and to some extent I agree with them, but ideally... I would blame more the people who start those little games Tellwyrth complains about than the topic itself. And try to convince them to stop doing that.

I am saying ideally. I am aware reality might not help me in that endeavor

edited 2nd Sep '14 6:42:21 AM by SaintDeltora

I don't think we're quite talking about the same thing, so I'll just let it drop.

Very well then.

I choose Bowser.

Not everyone who goes to war dies, especially in the olden days of conquest when the victors could come home with wealth, status, and - in some cultures - even some woman prizes. Everyone always focuses on the death, but men weren't exactly being systematically executed.

Yes, forcing people into combat for someone else's cause is awful, but portraying it as though every man sent to war immediately died and no man ever gained anything from it is total historical revisionism. Not every soldier is a dead man walking, murdered by his country for the crime of having a Y chromosome.

Men aren't sent to war just to die. That has never been the purpose of soldiers, and everyone here knows it. It has always been a risk of war, but never the intent.

No, I'm well aware that not everyone who goes to war ends up dead. Some get sent back to their home country and end up broke and destitute.

And no, I'm not saying that ALL veterans end up like this. Some come back home relatively unscathed and manage to leave happy, well- adjusted lives. That's not the point.

The point is how little we value them as people. It's no coincidence that veterans constitute 12% of the homeless population. Sure, we'll shower them with praise and adulation when they get home, but as soon as it's time to help them reenter society, we look the other way. I know the US has a history of deifying its soldiers and putting them on a pedestal, but a purple heart doesn't feed a family.

No, being sent to war isn't an automatic death sentence. You can survive it.

If you do, then that's great! I hope you have the skills and experience to find decent work when you get back, or else you're screwed.

If you don't? Eh. We Have Reserves.

Might I remind you guys that this is continuing an Oppression Olympics argument?

The inciting question last page was "Which would you rather be, stripped of personhood and agency, or dead?"...a specifically gendered Oppression Olympics question which has now turned into a scramble to debate/redefine the "or dead" side of things since its validity has been called into question.

So yeah, we're still doing what people have been telling each other not to do, while subtly continuing to do just that thing.

edited 2nd Sep '14 11:04:09 AM by KingZeal

Mmm. Out of subject with the current line of discussion but it ocurred to me that I did something I regret.

I saw something I liked, and would have liked very much to have it, due to its significance. I did not get it, however, despite my inner debates simply because I am an idiot and couldn't find a use for it.

The object in question? Jewelry. Femenine Jewelry. It was this Celtic Tree of Life necklace (You know, like Yggdrassil), but I did not purchase it because...honestly. What am I going to do with it as a guy? I did buy one for my mother as a present at least, however.

Feels stupid having to say it, or bring a personal experience to public light, more so, such an idiotic one. But. Yeah. Jewelry. Unless male jewelry, doesn't belong on guys. And it makes me feel silly. Just a minor, random, stupid issue. Hope it is not too stupid to not belong in this thread?