Sexism and Men's Issues

Lot of generalisations about "the male nerd" there.

Well, the other day I was in two conversation with friends of mine about feminism.

In the first one, there were three people: a male friend who's opposed to feminism and other social movements, and the girlfriend of another male friend whose full extent of knowledge on the subject is unknown to me, but she seems to know a lot. One of his arguments against feminism was that it doesn't try to make men and women equal as it claims to, his example being that feminism doesn't do anything about the Draft in Brazil. It turned out he was complaining women don't do anything to be included on it, because he's in favor of the Draft - otherwise the country would be left without Armed Forces since no one wants to serve the army. We didn't finish the conversation, but at least I hope I showed him that, on this particular issue, he shouldn't be complaining about feminism and instead be trying to convince them that the Draft is a good thing, since he thinks so (not that I agree with him on the Draft).

In the second one, it started with three people, the girl from before and a different male friend of mine, and it finished with a male philosophy teacher and about 4 other girls (plus some people hanging out in the room, some clearly not paying attention, others I'm not sure). We were talking about multiple topics, but it begun when my male friend complained about some problems he had with feminism, which turned out to be problems with the feminism movement, rather than feminism itself, which he agrees with. His complaint is that the movement is too unfocused when compared to its origins, and that dividing it among men and women is more troublesome than helpful. I summarized his complaint in two examples that aren't his arguments or what he was asking for, but simply theoretical explanations of them. The first one is showing that, from a Marxist point of view, all social movements are subgroups of a class movement - black people's, women's, LGBT people's, etc. - and, in that line of reasoning, should all be united under that class movement (the friend in question is black; at one point I tried to bring his line of reasoning to a black people's movement to see if he had the same opinion, but since I didn't want to change the subject I didn't try too hard). The second example is that there are "trunk" problems and "branch" problems, and he felt like modern feminism focused in branch problems instead of the trunk problems, that are wider reaching and cause the branch problems.

Uh, I felt like those were relevant to mention, after murazrai's comment last page.

it's very difficult to expect absolute unity in a social movement, because of the self-evident fact that people are different. you can't reasonably demand that people to all have the same opinions.

(also, forgive my crudeness, but fuck the draft).

edited 9th Oct '15 3:52:49 PM by wehrmacht

Yeah, I tried to show him that a social movement isn't analogous to a person, which means it can actually multitask well enough and tackle multiple problems at once. However I only wrote down a general view of what we talked about and his points, so I think focusing less on the specifics would be better. Besides, after more people arrived we started talking about other subjects too.

Not sure I agree with that branch of Marxist thought. Intersectionality is fine and all, but that comes dangerously close to co-opting social movements as fuel for your own.

Oddly enough, I have a friend who is a Marxist feminist with a penchant for intersectionality. She's not the co-opting type, and I think she has written a couple of articles against such co-opting (well, she's said something to the tune of 'I have some privilege, so I should let other who are not as fortunate as me talk about the issues they face today. They have many things worth saying').

edited 9th Oct '15 8:34:46 PM by Quag15

@Silasw: I expect feminist comment on such issues, but a quick glance showed none. I could be wrong, though.

@Victin: That is an interesting thought, but when the schism gets too deep to the point that there are attempts on silencing internal dissidents, maybe something has to be done.

Why would you expect feminist comment? It's a men's issue, not a women's issue. Hell in pretty sure that when the topic has come up here feminists have comment, but genrally it's been with their MIA (Men's Issues Activist) hat on rather than their feminist hat.

I see. So that is how feminists care about men. That does convince me that feminism and male rights can coexist, just not the way I expect.

it's not about feminists not caring about men.

it's more that in the same way feminism is a movement by women for women which welcomes male support, men's issues are well, men's issues, which need to be primarily addressed by men for men, especially when considering that men are the ones who propagate these problems.

there is nothing about feminism that is incompatible with men's issues, they are both about negative gender roles placed unfairly unto us by society.

edited 10th Oct '15 3:13:27 AM by wehrmacht

That doesn't really fit with the way it goes now. A 'Feminist' is at war with men, MRA are at war with women.

Anyone not like that have been trying to label themselves differently to differentiate themselves from that, thanks to the extremists ruining the reputation.

An MIA is not the same as an MRA and a 'Feminist' is not the same as a Feminist. So I think we're okay. Though I suspect that you'll find a lot of people in the two negative groups that could be talked into the positive ones if enough effort was put into it.

That's like asking why isn't the NAACP commenting on Native American issues.

1) I will give you a hint, they do. But often in order to find these responses you have to get off Google and look to accredited and respected academics and their advocacy.

2) You can't pick and choose when you want another demographic to be involved in your alliance or not or speaking for you or not.

Sometimes being a quality ally is staying quiet so the affected demographic can speak in their own voice on their own issues with their own power and your job as an ally is to listen to them and cheer them on.

You don't always need to make your own comments and detract from empowering the very demographic you claim to support.

I am kinda in awe from remembering that Man Issues Activist has the same acronym as Missing In Action.

I'm sure somebody else came up with it before me, but when folks told me that reforming MRA was a fools errand I specifically went for MIA for that exact reason. I hadn't heard the acronym used before but figured that it fit perfectly.

Misters In Action?

I read that as having an n in it at first, and begun imagining a traveliing bard troop bringing social progress wherever they go.

I'd love to see that.

The NSPCC (a leading UK children's charity) has come out hard against the fact that a 21 year old babysitter who raped an 11 year old has been given a light sentence with no jail time. They've pretty much called the system on the fact that the crime is being treated as lesser because the babysitter was a women and the child a boy.

The kid's dad actually defended the rapist of his child (who he happens to have also had sex with himself) and said that his son was up for it and considers it a notch in his belt. The NSPCC is having non of it and called the dad's statements "disturbing" and pretty much called it victim blaming.

edited 11th Oct '15 9:40:58 AM by Silasw

That poor boy's father's attitude is Toxic Masculinity at its worst. It's not like the kid was 17 and messing around with a 21 year old. The kid was 11 and she was in a position of power. She deserves way more than a slap on the wrist.

Does the kid have a mother?

If yes, do we know what she said on the matter?

She's pushing for the sentence to be upped to something reasonable.

This was disturbing enough without knowing that the dad is really a plant-human hybrid.

Jokes aside, this guy needs to be stripped of parental rights, ASAP. I'm not sure how, given he hasn't technically done anything himself (yet), but it really needs to happen before the kid hits puberty. I have a feeling things would get really ugly then.

Men Act, Women Are. This is the biggest flaw in our ability to respond appropriately to rape against male victims: the Patriarchal notion that men do sex and women have sex done to them. That the male participant is always the one responsible, the one who took the initiative, the one in control; the female's agency beginning and ending with the word "Yes," or, in some cases, the mere absence of a "No."

When a female child has sex with an adult male, we assume that he took advantage of his position, that he coerced or forced her into it, that he should have known better. We call it rape. As we should.

When a male child has sex with an adult female, we give him a pat on the back and tell him, "Job well done!" We assume that he seduced her with his amazing male prowess. We call it a conquest, a notch on his bedpost, a glorious achievement for masculinity. This is wrong. It's not glorious, it's not a conquest, it's rape.

But to acknowledge it as rape requires us to acknowledge the idea that sex is not wholly the domain of men, and neither is authority. That women have sexual desires outside pleasing their man. That women have agency. That women have power.

Because, after all, one cannot abuse their power if one is incapable of possessing it.

edited 13th Oct '15 12:09:00 PM by TobiasDrake

that is in part true, but it dosent always play that way, sometimes the trope que inverted as well: thinking women have a near perfect control of their sexuality that they can swich on and off at will while men sexuality is barely there as whole, being more as urge or something to scrach.

In this case they dont need to thing he did anything: only that a young women actually intersting enought to have sex with him because well...is a women, when they care for you, it have to be important.