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
Unreasonably Quirky
My task: work with young men on campus and get them to rethink what manhood means, in a way that would lead, hopefully, over time to their viewing women and girls as their equals. If we were lucky, a few of these male students would become vocal allies in the work to end gender violence, particularly since the vast majority of cases involve men and boys attacking women and girls in some way, in the U.S. and on our planet. In my initial interactions, I spent a full week meeting with every fraternity on campus and captains of various sports teams, including the nationally ranked football team. I knew the guys were not comfortable with these mandatory gatherings, so I started each with a simple question: What is a man? Sighs of relief and phrases such as "leader," "protector," "caretaker," "responsible," "head of the house" fell from their mouths. Each session, I told them that they had just described my single mother and most women I've encountered in my life. These young men would grow quiet. I then asked them to name at least 10 women in American history. The usual list: Rosa Parks, Betsy Ross, Hillary Clinton, Helen Keller and Florence Nightingale, and they would inevitably stall. Pressed to tell me something about each of these women, only a handful could ever answer that question. When you don't know something about a group or people, any people, people different from you, it becomes very easy not to honor them as your equals, easy not to respect them, easy not to love them, easy not to see their lives as valuable as yours. And easy to directly and indirectly participate in hurting that group, with your language, with your deeds, with your ignorance and reckless disregard for their humanity.
This is why when I think about manhood in our 21st-century context, I think instantly of mayhem, confusion, violence. These things have come in the form of one mass shooter after another, murdering people at work, on military bases, on college campuses, in grade schools. These things have come in the form of misogynistic comments from men as different in pedigree as billionaire presidential candidate Donald Trump and Grammy Award-winning rapper T.I. These things have come in the form of my travel as a speaker and activist, reading local newspaper stories of men and boys, more aggressively and brutally than ever, raping or killing women and girls, oftentimes their girlfriends or wives.
It is clear to me that manhood in this nation is in deep crisis, our growth stunted at epidemic proportions. Meanwhile, few are talking about or doing anything remotely close to addressing the issue. When we brace ourselves for the next mass murder, we are quick to cite gun control and mental illness, but rarely do we ask, Why are the overwhelming majority of these mass shooters men? When we see poor men in poor communities blow each other away with guns, quite a few of us utter a litany of socioeconomic factors, but rarely do I hear, Why are these boys-to-men doing this to themselves, to each other?
As I led the sessions with these college men, work I have done now for over 20 years, I spent many restless nights pondering the irony of this part of my activism. I grew up as most heterosexual boys did: I played every sport possible. I learned early on the rite-of-passage of seeing girls as sexual objects, as playthings, as anything except my equal. I fought because boys were taught to fight, be rough, antagonistic, to never show weakness, not even to cry, at least not in public. I digested every kind of pop cultural icon one could name, on television, in movies, in books, in my beloved hip-hop culture, who represented the mighty male figure that armies of us were instructed we must become.
This behavior led to catastrophic results for me. I had no clue how to express a balance of emotions for many years: It was either thunderous silence or raw explosions of rage. I did not know how to give love to myself or women and girls, and by the time I got to college, I merely did what other young males on my campus did: I had sex as casually as I slipped on my jeans and sneakers, and often did not give much thought to the woman on the receiving end. And I eventually pushed a girlfriend, post-college, into a bathroom door as we were arguing, the culmination of years of backward and very warped definitions of manhood imprisoned in pain and trauma.
I got help, in the form of years of therapy, my ever-evolving spiritual faith, a circle of women and men who mentored me, over time, to understand the damaging effects of manhood rooted in the characteristics I explain above. Some think that being physical toward a woman or girl is the only form of violence. I have worked with both female survivors of domestic violence and male batterers for whom the violence was emotional, verbal, financial or all of the above, anything to maintain control.
This is what made those sessions with the young men at that university so difficult. Many of them, I'm sure, will go on to become CE Os of Fortune 500 companies, elected officials, leaders of various industries and professions, but very few of them even knew the histories of their own mothers or grandmothers or sisters. Few had a clue about pay inequality or sexual harassment. And fewer still could understand why we spent so much time discussing consent and why coercing a woman to have sex while she is drunk is rape.
I do not know what will happen to those young men I worked with for a year. What I do know is this: Just as the feminist movement in America has challenged male domination in every form, a men's movement is needed now more than ever before. The movement must be inclusive of males of all ages and backgrounds, rooted in peace, love and healthy definitions of manhood that include viewing women and girls as our equals. It should be a movement that is not in opposition to women, not trying to return to the days of "the rugged man," but one that makes room for every kind of man possible (including men on the LGBTQ spectrum), where we can be vulnerable, emotionally available, truly free.
That movement needs to include a re-education of men and boys, no matter the demographic, where we actually learn about the contributions of women and girls to every aspect of American society. It must teach boys about manhood, about womanhood, as early as their preteen years, and it needs to be a part of sports culture early on, too. It should be in our schools, in our faith-based institutions, in our mass media culture. We need to see this movement as critical to the future of our nation as the civil rights movement was: an effort to shift from ignorant and despicable behavior toward love for human beings different from us.
Finally, I have many men say to me that they respect women. Respect is not enough at this stage, even if you are not the kind of man who would ever call a woman the b word, or make disrespectful or derogatory declarations about what women and girls can and cannot do, or should and should not do. Even if you would never punch, kick, bite, spit on or fight a woman, or rape a woman, stab or shoot and murder a woman, you have men and boys in your family, in your community, in your fraternity or political group or spiritual institution, or in your workplace or places of play, who do or have done these things. And when you say nothing at all, you become just as guilty.
What a load of garbage.
Here's a protip: if your men's movement is solely designed to benefit women and girls, then it's not a men's movement. It's a women's movement.
And that's fine! There's nothing wrong with creating a movement to combat cultural and institutional misogyny, and violence against women. Except that, oh yeah, we already have one of those.
Not once does this guy mention male suicide rates, and mental health issues are quickly shoved to the wayside. Gosh, you think any of these issues have anything to do with the stigma surrounding men who aren't neurotypical? Nope! It's all because men are inherently horrible and they need to be reeducated for the benefit of women everywhere!
And the writer neglects to mention that while men are the majority of perpetrators of violent crime, they're also the majority of recipients. Muggers, robbers and gangs are far more likely to target other men than they are women. I guess that'd get in the way of the whole "men are evil" narrative.
This is why I'm so apprehensive of the term "toxic masculinity". 90% of the time it's not used to discuss male suicide, or gang violence, or anything that actually hurts men. It's only seen as a bad thing when women and girls are on the receiving end of it.
I'm sorry, am I being unreasonable? Is it unfair to expect that a men's movement should actually help men?
I...
...
I give up. Excuse me while I go jump headfirst off a cliff. Which I suppose is fine as long as I don't hurt any women on the way down.
edited 20th Oct '15 2:12:28 PM by TyeDyeWildebeest
I love to learn, I love to yearn, and most of all... I love to make money.
A procrastination in of itself
In actual (if slightly old now) men's issues news, the group Men Do Complain staged a protest at the Conservative Party Conferance in the UK over the issue of circumcision/male gentile mutilation, calling on the government to take seriously the issue of boys having their genitalia mutilated for religious reasons.
edited 20th Oct '15 2:23:24 PM by Silasw
"And the Bunny nails it!" ~ Gabrael "If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we." ~ Cyran
Party Crasher
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
Yeah, some people can get really defensive when dealing with social movements dedicated to battling men's issues. It's like they think someone is trying to steal their thunder as the sole voice of the oppressed or something.
Or it could just be sexism/internalized misandy speaking.
Why isn't this banned, at least in the EU, yet is beyond me.
edited 20th Oct '15 2:32:42 PM by LogoP
It is sometimes an appropriate response to reality to go insane.
People tried over here and got promptly slammed for "antisemitism". :/
edited 20th Oct '15 2:39:12 PM by DrunkenNordmann
Welcome to Estalia, gentlemen.
Unreasonably Quirky
Pretty much, yeah. That's why we're so reluctant to deviate from the narrative that places women as the primary (read: only) victims.
On the topic of infant circumcision, I agree that it should be banned (and I say that as a Jew). Infants can't consent, and the "science" behind its supposed benefits is questionable at best.
edited 20th Oct '15 2:47:30 PM by TyeDyeWildebeest
I love to learn, I love to yearn, and most of all... I love to make money.
Party Crasher
Ah yes, the same flawless line of reasoning which maintains that if you try to impose some decent animal welfare standards on those dreadful kosher slaughterhousesnote , you're literally Hitler.
I personally have no issue with an adult, or even older teenager, deciding on his own to have this procedure. Whether it's for medical, religious or aesthetic reasons. Just don't have it done on infants. And for God's sake, have it carried out by medical professionals.
edited 20th Oct '15 2:56:18 PM by LogoP
It is sometimes an appropriate response to reality to go insane.
Well, I think it is kind of a zero sum game in the sense that women's movements are generally aimed at what I guess I'd broadly call "patriarchal" oppression and conversely, the premise of men's movements is usually that they rather than women are the "real victims" and that as text or subtext, women are responsible for the problems men face.
So like most of the time, you see men's rights people focusing on divorce and child custody and accusing women of making false rape accusations and pulling the baby trap let and right.
So yeah, no surprise that feminists are going to be primarily interested in male issues that are also tied to "the patriarchy". And men's rights activists are almost always hostile to feminism because they hate women.
Well, as a Jew, I support infant circumcision. Although, this version called metzitzah b'peh
should be banned and punished to the full extent of the law. In terms of the anti-semitism issue, I'm not sure how much opposition to that is based on that (although IIRC there were some iffy anti-circumcision posters/comics that used some questionable imagery). OT, but on the issue of Kosher and Halal slaughtering, I do get the impression that proposed bans on them in European countries have derived from biogted motives. Because there's a decent argument that they are more humane than "normal" methods of animal slaughtering, and it seems kind of suspicious to decide that a method that is "coincidentally" used by Jews and Muslims is inhumane.
edited 20th Oct '15 3:11:08 PM by Hodor2
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
This man speaks the truth.
Party Crasher
I don't think that one being skeptic towards feminism, or a specific brand of itnote , means that they hate women. Feminism doesn't represent all women.
edited 20th Oct '15 3:03:06 PM by LogoP
It is sometimes an appropriate response to reality to go insane.
Jupiterian Local
The point is that we don't need a "men's movement" that's actually feminism (we already have feminism, we don't need another movement with a different name that does the same thing), and we don't need a "men's movement" that's actually anti-feminism (we don't need anti-feminism at all, thanks). What we need is a men's movement that actually addresses men's issues. There are plenty of issues that men face, many of which don't involve women at all, so can't really be addressed through the lens of feminism.
Tye Dye Wildebeest has a fair point in that the editorial calling for a men's movement focuses almost exclusively on the idea that this needs to be done for the good of women. I didn't notice when I read it the first time, but now that it's been pointed out I definitely agree. The whole article is basically "men need to learn how to be comfortable with themselves without treating women like shit" — which is true, undoubtedly, but does sort of miss the point. If you're talking about a men's movement, you'd expect the focus to be on men.
edited 20th Oct '15 3:06:02 PM by NativeJovian
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.
Yeah. I actually do agree on that. It's not really a men's movement so much as it's a male-geared feminism. Like that really is a message that men should be taught, but I see the issue with how it is framed there.
I should also note in fairness that Tye Dye Wildebeest didn't object to those messages either.
Edit- One other thought- I would note that as far as one thing he mentioned- gangs- I'd say that's a situation where it does make sense to bring up feminism- because the same macho ethos that makes such people shitty to each other/other men also makes them shitty toward women.
edited 20th Oct '15 3:09:33 PM by Hodor2
A procrastination in of itself
That's only specifically Men's Rights Movements, there are plenty of good Men's Issues Movements out there that aren't just Internet assholes moaning about women. How the numbers work out for MR As compared to MI As I don't know.
Likewise when people are working to try and build a much needed Men's Issues Movment, it's kinda a bit weird for people to call for a men's Movment that completely ignores the existing attempts by men to build a Movment for men that addresses real issues that men face (as in actual issues, not the bullshit fake issues that MR As talk about).
Edit: Ninjas, there's a reason I didn't respond to the post, I honestly don't feel it's on topic, it's about how men need to be taught to treat women better, that seems more appropriate for the women's issues thread. This thread is for issues that effect men, not the issue of men hurting others. Likewise I'd feel that something about how women need to be taught to not reinforce sexist stereotypes about men (such as that men can't cook or are weak for wanting kids or to settle down) should be posted over here, not in the women's issues thread.
edited 20th Oct '15 3:09:46 PM by Silasw
"And the Bunny nails it!" ~ Gabrael "If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we." ~ Cyran
Party Crasher
Reddit and its bullshit MRA/The Red Pill subs have seriously damaged the reputation of male issues movements and will probably cast a shadow for the years to come. At least online.
It is sometimes an appropriate response to reality to go insane.
Regarding your edit, I'm not sure I agree. I see the problems with how the article was framed, but I think that attitudes toward women is a male issue in the sense that part of being a well-functioning person is having empathy toward others, and if you are an MRA/"red pill" (never heard that one before), you probably aren't a well functioning person.
Like to give the obvious example, the whole "nice guy" thing where men who blame women for not having sex with/forming a relationship with them, seems like a situation where people are "treating" their self-esteem issues in an unhealthy way. And so if you wanted men to have healthy self-esteem, it would make sense to address/oppose this mindset.
edited 20th Oct '15 3:17:07 PM by Hodor2
A procrastination in of itself
They're MR As, not MI As, we've had to make the exact distinction to get away from those shitters. I always find it odd that we've been told to give up the label of MRA to the assholes, I don't like the idea that assholes should get to takeover a name that's a perfectly good representation of a legitimate ideal.
Can I ask why? I mean it's a religious action, shouldn't that only be done to people who chose to be part of a religion?
A lack of empathy towards others is broadly a male issue in that the problem of men being taught to not have empathy and feel emotions is a serious problem due to the side effects that it causes for men. But that's clearly not the aim of the article and it shouldn't be, the serious issues of some men treating women like shit shouldn't be solved because it's not healthy for men to treat people like shit, it should be solved because women don't deserve to be treated like shit. The primary victims of the culture that pushes those particular ideas forward are women, so the issue should be tackled for women, not for men.
edited 20th Oct '15 3:18:21 PM by Silasw
"And the Bunny nails it!" ~ Gabrael "If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we." ~ Cyran
Queen of Good Things, Honest
It's from The Matrix. The red pill is what wakes you up from the lies of your social conditioning and allows you to discover the secret reality buried in the world.
If that sounds super-pretentious that an MRA group calls themselves that, rest assured it's only because it's super-pretentious.
edited 20th Oct '15 3:17:00 PM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently liveblogging Haruhi Suzumiya and revisiting Danganronpa V3.
A procrastination in of itself
Aren't they technically not an MRA group but instead their own thing? Fuck if I know, I know that they're assholes who want to treat people like shit, that's kinda all I need to know.
"And the Bunny nails it!" ~ Gabrael "If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we." ~ Cyran
@Silasw
Well basically, the religion calls for circumcision after birth and that's a "condition" for being Jewish. And so in a sense, banning circumcision means banning Judaism. And while I'm sure I'm biased, I'm skeptical of the more overblown reports of circumcision's negative effects.
That being said, I suppose that if it actually is harmful, there's no reason why the religion couldn't substitute a symbolic version. I mean we don't sacrifice animals anymore and prayer has been considered a symbolic way of doing that.
Also, I'm kind of wondering about this:
"But that's clearly not the aim of the article and it shouldn't be, the serious issues of some men treating women like shit shouldn't be solved because it's not healthy for men to treat people like shit, it should be solved because women don't deserve to be treated like shit. The primary victims of the culture that pushes those particular ideas forward are women, so the issue should be tackled for women, not for men."
I'm not sure if I'm misreading you, but are you taking issue with the idea that men would "instruct" other men to treat women well? It kind of sounded like you are saying it's the "responsibility" of women to raise that issue. Apologies if I'm misreading.
edited 20th Oct '15 3:24:26 PM by Hodor2
Party Crasher
x5 Basically, if r/MRA is the Conservapedia of MR As, r/The Red Pill could reasonably be described as their Metapedia.
It's less that's it's "damaging" and more that it's invasive and medically unnecessary. Not to mention the ethics of consent when it comes to infants.
Besides, as you ,correctly, said, almost every religion has its own archaic and anachronistic customs that have been replaced with something more socially acceptable/less "extreme".
edited 20th Oct '15 3:28:31 PM by LogoP
It is sometimes an appropriate response to reality to go insane.
A procrastination in of itself
I'm pretty sure some Muslim sects would argue that FGM is a key part of the girls being Muslim, I fail to see the difference. I'm pretty sure if a religion called for the removal of a child's little finger after birth we'd pretty strongly go with "yeah, fuck no" as a response to that.
Why should it being religious mean that an irreversible, cosmetic surgery, on a child who cannot consent, for non-medical reasons is okay?
Edit to your edit: It's certainly a issue for men to raise and a cause for men to fight for, but they should be doing it under the banner of men who belive in and support feminism, not under the banner of men's issues. They are two different causes, I'd like all men and women to be involved in promoting both causes, but the same way you don't go to a gay rights rally and ask them to start fighting for black rights one shouldn't be asking men's issues groups to be fighting for women's rights or women's rights groups to be fighting for men's issues. Even if the people in such groups should hopefully have massive overlap.
edited 20th Oct '15 3:29:52 PM by Silasw
"And the Bunny nails it!" ~ Gabrael "If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we." ~ Cyran
Well, I think the problem with the FGM (or little finger) comparison is that that is obviously way more harmful. Assuming no medical benefits, I'd consider circumcision akin to ear piercing (although obviously that's visible in a way that circumcision isn't most of the time).
It's like rightly or wrongly, parents get to do a lot of stuff on their child's behalf/without their child's consent. Why single out circumcision?
Ah see. I agree then for the most part.
edited 20th Oct '15 3:34:00 PM by Hodor2
A procrastination in of itself
I edited to your edit by the way.
But yes ear piercings are an apt comparison (and one that's been made before in reference to certain African tribal groups and certain very large piercings), assuming that piercing holes don't heal themselves if given enough time, I'm no expert on the subject. And honestly I'm not okay with the idea of parents having the ears of babies pieced to support their own cultural beliefs.
Edit: We genrally don't let parents put their kids though entirely unneeded medical procedures simply because the parents culture calls for it. Circumcision is singled out because it's both iriversable and the only type we actually allow, I think. That and it's far more widespread then any other similar thing I belive.
edited 20th Oct '15 3:38:11 PM by Silasw
"And the Bunny nails it!" ~ Gabrael "If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we." ~ Cyran
Party Crasher
Because it's not that beneficial. And it's irreversable. Not to mention it puts infants under a lot of unnecessary physical & mental pain.
Ear piercings too, though obviously the effect is smaller.
edited 20th Oct '15 3:34:55 PM by LogoP
It is sometimes an appropriate response to reality to go insane.
A nice butterfly
You know, just because parents, and their parents, and grandparents, and great-grandparents, and great....have been doing stupid shit for a long time doesn't mean it's ok to keep doing it.
Even if it is cosmetic, or considered "trivial". It's not for you to decide how to toy with a human's body.
It has always been the prerogative of children and half-wits to point out that the emperor has no clothes
Also...can you give me the link of your avatar? it look damn awsome
edited 20th Oct '15 1:04:15 PM by unknowing
"My Name is Bolt, Bolt Crank and I dont care if you believe or not"