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
@Karalora: I don't know if it's quite as extreme as that, but there's at least enough of a diffenrence that boys get the message that girls books aren't for them.
In general gendering in childrens books:
For boys: action stuff/adventure stuff/machines and technology/animals and exotic creatures that are strong/fast/tough/cool
for girls: drama/everyday stuff/nurturing stuff (say the baby sitter club)/magic/animals and exotic creatures that are cute
Rocket Dude you hit a point that those I have taught with, Aprilla, and almost anyone in academia have struggled with.
Most people don't know how to teach Classics. They just don't. And with the American system where people are trying to cram all sorts of things in for the test not really for retention.
Jane Austin has some awesome lessons on gender roles and their dangers, but how many high school teachers put that context in whenever they force their kids to read Pride and Prejudiced? Not many, certainly not enough.
Both genders could gain from the Classics, but only if the Classics are taught well and the context of the time is clearly established as well as the implications on our modern era are essential in helping the kids understand, retain, and build on what knowledge the Classic can get.
"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - Aszur
Glad to see someone's calling out Rosin on her bullshit
Although her book and Atlantic article do point out some disturbing trends,the conclusion is very disagreeable and would not be published if it was the other way around
The point is more about someone calling her out,and there are some good arguments the person wrote,she is the example of what combating sexism should be.
Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter
Face Time
^Quite a good read, I'd say.
"Hipsters: the most dangerous gang in the US." - Pacific Mackerel
Is Rosin's article supposed to be an opinion or a statistical report?
And I do think "End of Men" is one-sided. Wiping out men from power is not a good idea.
Rosalin's article was just a shallow attempt to shame men back into 50s gender roles. At least that's what it seemed to me. I haven't read the book so I can't comment if that's just more of the same.
Have we talked about the stereotype how men supposedly lament more when they are sick? If we haven't, I have a very simple explanation for that: men are expected to be strong and tough, so when they aren't that people tend to see that more. When a women complains about a sickness everything she expresses is perceived as perfectly justified. This is a pretty harmful stereotype when men are actually more likely to avoid medical treatment.
Manliest Person on Skype
It could also be: Men are expected to be strong and tough, and it's tiring, so when they have an excuse not to be, they play it up for all it's worth.
However, in my experience the stereotype isn't as simple as "Men whine more about being sick than women do." It's more: "Men whine more about little things, like a cold or a paper cut, especially to their wives/girlfriends/people who can be persuaded to fuss over them. When it comes to big things, they pretend it's no big deal and refuse to go to the doctor." Which is still related to a desire to appear invulnerable. When something is wrong but it's not serious, it's acceptable to let your guard down around someone you trust to take care of you and not treat you like an inferior just because you burned your thumb on the barbecue. But you don't dare let anyone know when something really lays you low—not even her, because if she can't fix it on her own she'll want to bring in an outsider with more training.
I'm sort of drifting from stereotype to reality here, because this is one stereotype I've found to be largely true—men do ham up minor illnesses and injuries to the women in their lives so that they can get some attention. I don't think there's anything necessarily wrong with that. It might do women some good to get similarly hammy. Everyone needs to be pampered and catered to once in a while.
Stuff what I do.
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
Huh, that's one of the stereotypes that I've never actually seen guys play to.
Yeah, this is honestly something I've seen both sexes do. People in general love to fish for pity, but wish to hide vulnerability.
Yeah, the stereotype is more about little things that get blown out of proportion. And your explanation makes a lot of sense, though I still stand by my assumption how this is often portrayed as people not accepting that something serious could happen to a big, strong man.
I've never known men to complain particularly much about minor illnesses either. Speaking of men's health here's an article from slate a few days ago:
It's kind of annoyingly vague and non-commited though. It recognizes that there is a discrepancy, but it only makes a token mention of the possibility of doing something about it.
edited 10th Oct '12 7:21:26 PM by Morven
As someone who's spent the last couple of years having to visit the doctor frequently and, yes, often refused, I'd like to point out that's not true. It has nothing to do with a desire to appear invulnerable. It's a combination of (A) thinking the illness will blow over and (B) not wanting to waste a doctor's time when they have more important people to deal with. So you make out like it's to do with pride — wanting to appear invincible — when it's actually about being humble; thinking everyone else has it worse off.
Nemesis
I suspect it's a combination of a whole bunch of factors, some being more prominent in some people than others. You're right, Guest, that arrogance isn't the only reason; humility can be another barrier.
A brighter future for a darker age.
Manliest Person on Skype
Guest, I respect that you speak for yourself.
Please do not purport to speak for all men.
Obviously I don't speak for all men either, but I can comment on the men I have known, and believe me—with most of them, humility and self-sacrifice had nothing to do with their reluctance to visit a doctor.
I'm now wondering how specific this trend is to the United States and how avoiding expense factors into it. Do men—or women, for that matter—avoid the doctor to the same extent in countries with free-APOP healthcare?
Stuff what I do.
Nemesis
The American "healthcare system" does hurt so damn much, doesn't it?
A brighter future for a darker age.
Tell me about it. I could rant for days about how much I hate it.
I know for a fact that Drunkscriblerian is putting off a root canal because getting in to see the doc is such a pain in the ass.
"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian
I've seen some examples of the stereotype Karalora described.
But I've seen TONS of examples of men not going to the doctor for various reasons, including my own father who pulled a nail out of his leg himself and figured the antibiotics in the medicine cabniet is good enough.
We also have tons of numbers saying men don't take advantage of preventative care or proper follow up visits in comparison to women.
"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - Aszur
Nemesis
Edited kzickas' post so as to not extend line lengths and break formatting.
A brighter future for a darker age.
Street Writing Man
@Kara: DG's right. Half the reason men I know downplay/put off dealing with potential threats to their health is simply because going to the doc costs so damn much in America. As DG mentioned, I've needed a root canal for a while now...and I haven't gotten it done simply because I cannot afford to do it. Now that I'm trying to get it taken care of, I've spent over $200 and they haven't done anything except look at it.
If I were to write some of the strange things that come under my eyes they would not be believed. ~Cora M. Strayer~
A lot of people are judging Rosin's book on it's sensationalist title, which is misleading anyway. Do I agree with her? Eh, in bits. I think she's going about her positive ideas the wrong way so more people are being confused than interested.
But here is an excellent discussion with Rosin, her critics, and some that coinside with neither. I think this book isn't the evil everyone makes it out to be, so give it a shot.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GWtIvVGSJA&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Are you talking about here? Because I think most of the discussion here was about the original article not the book
edited 11th Oct '12 8:14:27 AM by Kzickas
It's kept track of the updated gender roles rather than repeating the same talking points most feminists still use.
But no,it relies greatly on characitures and negative stereotypes of men to get things across,and it seemed to be saying over and over and over "now that things are equal,it would appear women really are better or will be. Who hasn't wanted that".
Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter
Did you even watch my link?
Are there actually any statistics how boys read less than girls or are we just assuming that? It makes some sense as a possible reason for the differences in education but when boys actually read as much or more than girls the point would be kinda moot.