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
belongs to the hurricane
That's understandable enough but the average person isn't going to be privy to the inner feelings of the enraged person in question. A reaction can have multiple meanings and you aren't necessarily going to be able to always guess people's motivations for what they do. It still ends up leading to a bit of an image problem.
edited 21st Feb '16 6:41:26 AM by wehrmacht
Ahr river
Silasw:
Re: Positive Groups: SJW has become such a catch all for anything that is remotely progressive, that often times people fall under it out of necessity. It's not an organized group like Feminist groups or the MRA. It's a far more eclectic thing, and more of a result of language evolving than people forming a similar group. It is less tainted in other areas, and other folks have reclaimed the tainted term.
It's like the term 'mary sue' basically. Initially a negative use with a specific definition, but rapidly devolved once it was used in application. But unlike mary sue, it had a reclamation thing going on.
Wehrmacht: I am aware most people don't know the going ons. Hence why I"m explaining my own experiences, for better information :3. Cause I know certain types of extremism, at least where I frequent, and being able to know the differing varieties is good, so you can address it in time. For instance, I didn't know about such groups like Silasw described. Now I do. And now I know I could handle that person if I met them because I am ready. However, I do have an inkling of an idea on where that concept originated from, so I can connect it and analyze it accordingly.
edited 21st Feb '16 6:44:07 AM by MrAHR
Read my stories!
V
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
I can see that varying according to location as well; some issues that might be important in some places are less so in others, or one country's progressive is another's regressive? I guess that can sometimes create friction?
Also also because, while one might be "progressive", one can start from a different location and/or progress in a different direction to others elsewhere?note
edited 21st Feb '16 6:51:41 AM by Greenmantle
Keep Rolling On
Ahr river
Greenmantle: Agreed on both counts. Especially since a lot of tactics often originated from backlash against some societal norm. Depending on the intensity of the norm (which varies on location and culture), what they do might make perfect sense, or seem alien and bizarre (for instance I would not be surprised if the argument Silasw encountered was five steps removed (and mangled) from the backlash against 'oh sure they're bigoted, but they're still a good person' as a concept)
edited 21st Feb '16 6:56:10 AM by MrAHR
Read my stories!
People can be discriminatory (often referred to as 'bigoted') in certain areas such as race or sex, and still have many great other characteristics. The world isn't black and white.
Ahr river
Correct. But there was a backlash against the mentality due to the fact that said traits could still be harmful to someone. Trying to explain to a gay person that a homophobic person is still a "lovely individual" can come across as a tad condescending at the best of times, downright ignorant and cruel at the worst of times.
So many people pushed for a "no I can hate you for these reasons. I don't care if you're a good person, you are terrible for the reasons that matter for me, which is my humanity" Basically the opposite side of the world not being black and white. "Just because a person is a good person X percentage of the time doesn't mean I have to give them the time of fucking day."
We actually had that issue in tvt, where people were polite, but held frustrating and insulting beliefs. It took many a forum drama to figure out how to draw the line between what was acceptable and what was not.
edited 21st Feb '16 7:42:55 AM by MrAHR
Read my stories!
I mean that's the whole point of rhetoric. The art of argument. And certainly MRA groups and MGOTW groups and MTOEWR groups and peqwriuwpetw groups are fine tuned on their ability to argue, why can't SJW groups? And I'm okay with labeling these groups, at least where the internet is concerned, SJ Ws. While the term started out as a negative connotation, at this point the only thing that can be done is own the label and turn it into a positive rather than a negative.
And there's a lot to be said about the people, and yes they are people, in these groups. If anyone wants I can link more than a few stories about people who were in fact part of these groups, talking about how their experiences led them to that point in their lives, and how and why they left. It paints a good picture of some (though certainly not a flat rule) of the people who these groups try and recruit. And those are just the people that identify as MR As and whatnot. There are a lot of people who really don't care, they just go with the popular circlejerk of the day. Show them a good counterargument and at the very least it can make them question themselves, if not "convert" them (I hate using that term in this context, it makes progressiveness seem like a religion instead of a mentality that literally anyone can adopt).
And the easiest way to deal with the dilemma of "good people, shitty opinions" and just go with the "hate the sin, not the sinner" approach. Bring it up when it's on topic, argue about it, but keep things civil and understand that there's a reason they think a certain way and believe certain things.
Part of the reason SJW has the history it does is because it started out as a shame label for anyone proclaiming social views the speakers didn't like. It was applied amazingly scattershot, not just to toxic elements, but to healthy ones and even mainstream ones.
Some of the people who got tarred with it were sick of being told to shut up every time they advocated for themselves and thus embraced the label. They would be warriors for social justic and they wouldn't shut up because it made people uncomfortable to hear what they were saying.
So because of poor practices using the label, now the label is used by and for anyone who talks about social justice for any reason in any way.
This concludes, a brief historical outline of the term social justic warrior.
Reality is that, which when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away. -Philip K. Dick
Not entirely sure how on topic this is, but I've been on a VR hype induced high for the past year or so, and I had to say something on the subject.
As virtual reality technology (read: Oculus's Rift and HTC/Valve's Vive) steadily improves, it's inevitable that sooner or later we'll be at the point where in a virtual space where facial capture can allow you to have an actual conversation with someone that looks like, well, anyone. And as voice synthesis improves, sooner or later we'll be at the point where you can talk with someone who looks and sounds like someone entirely different.
A lot of what we consider the internet, for better (freedom of expression) or for worse (freedom of expression), is built off this concept of anonymity. The idea that you can be anyone behind the screen, a detachment between the things you do on the internet and the person you are irl. But VR is different. See, in VR the concept of presence means that when you talk with someone in VR you feel like you're talking with someone irl.
So if you feel like you're talking with someone in real life, will people be more inclined to act with a higher manner of social grace, that is to say will people not be such assholes to each other on the VR internet?
But at the same time, once voice synthesis kicks in, anonymity will return, but in a different form. See, right now on the internet I don't have a strong sense of identity. I have the safe shield of my computer monitor sure, but outside of what you can take from what I've said, where I am, and maybe my avatar/signature if I have one, you don't have a strong sense of who I am. I could be male, female, gay, straight, black, white, it doesn't matter. You can take a wild guess and you might be right, but there's still that uncertainty, and where there is uncertainty we fill it in with experience. We assume.
But in VR people will have identities, even if it isn't their irl identity. They'll have a digital representation of themselves, a digital voice representing themselves, and in a lot of ways they'll have to identify with the avatar they chose for themselves. What kind of an effect is that going to have on internet culture as we know it? If we make new identities for ourselves, will we act differently anyways? After all, if we're ultimately shaped by our experiences, and our experiences are ultimately shaped by others perceptions of us, then changing how we are perceived by others should, logically following, cause our experiences to differ.
An interesting example (though not specifically gender related) comes in the form of Rust (you know, one of those hip new fangled open world survival adventure experiences all the kids are talking about these days).
Extra Credits does a better job at explaining this than I ever could, but to sum it up players acted differently, whether actively (as many a greentext story has gone) or passively, with regards to black avatars versus white avatars. People who up to that point had never had to experience any sort of tension because of their race were suddenly forced to face it head on.
Now, apply that to VR on a much broader scale. Players being treated differently because of the voice, avatar, persona they chose to put on. Players responding differently because of it. And ultimately, what this might result in is a complete dissociation with the irl self and the avatar. Roleplaying on a broader scale.
Gender politics are a touchy subject on the internet, but I can only imagine how much more convoluted they might get when you can literally never be sure if you're talking to a guy or a girl. When suddenly, some random guy who decides on a whim to try on a female avatar and voice combo is suddenly met with a completely different reaction from the same group of folks he was just hanging out with a few minutes ago. Experiences that might, eventually, broaden our understanding of gender, both masculine and feminine.
belongs to the hurricane
I still think that "SJW" is too loaded a term to be worth embracing really.
The Mod with the Migraine
Speaking of problems with activists, one of them laid out exactly why SJW culture
is sometimes part of the problem they're trying to solve. Emphasis mine.
First of all, I’m tired of watching people turn into pretentious assholes who think their activism makes them better than everyone else, even those oppressed and marginalized groups with whom they claim “allyship”.
If you’ve ever worked in the shelter system, or any field that serves those deemed as oppressed or marginalized in any way, such as abuse victims, the homeless, or people who struggle with addictions and/or mental illness (just a few examples)…one of the first things you learn is that they usually do not frame their worldviews in terms of academic theories you learned in gender studies classes in University. For the most part, they tend to not analyze their experiences in terms of systemic power and privilege, concepts such as “the patriarchy”, “white privilege”, or “heteronormativity”. While many of these folks are directly impacted by class inequality and do realize it, they are likely not spending their days and nights reading Karl Marx, educating themselves on the intricacies of capitalism. They do not sit around pondering the effects of “problematic behaviours” in radical communities. They are not concerned with checking their privilege. No. They are busy trying to survive. Getting through the next day. Meeting their basic needs such as food, shelter and hygiene. They do not bother with policing their language and worrying about how their words might unintentionally perpetuate certain stereotypes. They are more concerned with their voices being heard in the first place.
And yet I witness so many “activists” who claim to care about those at the bottom of society ignoring the realities of oppression, as if being offended by a person’s speech or worldview is equal to prison time or living on the streets. They talk about listening, being humble, questioning one’s preconceived notions about other people and hearing their lived experiences…and yet ignore the lived experiences of those who don’t speak or think properly in the view of university-educated social justice warriors, regardless of how much worse off they really are. That is not to say that we should accept bigotry in any form — far from it. But I would go as far as saying that the politically correct mafia on the left perpetuates a form of bigotry on its own because it alienates and “otherizes” those who do not share their ways of thinking and speaking about the world.
I’m tired of the cliques, the hierarchies, the policing of others, and the power imbalances that exist between people who claim to be friends and comrades. I am exhausted and saddened by the fact that any type of disagreement or difference of opinion in an activist circle will lead to a fight, which sometimes includes abandonment of certain people, deeming them “unsafe” as well as public shaming and slander. It is disgusting that we claim to be building a new world, a new society, a better way of dealing with social problems — but if a person makes a mistake, says and/or does something wrong, they are not even given a chance to explain their side of what happened because the process of conflict resolution is in itself driven by ideology rather than a willingness to understand facts. Actually, in today’s activist circles one is lucky to be given any sort of due process at all, while everyone is put under social pressure to believe everything they are told regardless of what actually occurred in a given situation. This is not freedom. This is not social justice. There is nothing “progressive” or “radical” about it, unless you are referring to fascism.
Speaking of Fascism, there is also a disturbing trend on the left nowadays that involves rejecting free speech/freedom of expression as a core value, because that speech could possibly be hurtful to someone, somewhere. This is not only dangerous but it also works against us, because as leftists we are often labelled as threats by the state and at the very least, we are unpopular by society in general. Does this not mean that freedom of thought and expression are crucial to our struggles? That we should always defend our right to question what we’re taught, our right to be different? As Noam Chomsky put it: “If we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all.” Freedom of expression and the like does not mean we have to agree with what another person says…in fact, it means that when we do not, we certainly have the right to challenge it. But what myself and many others are seeing is the shutting off of dialogue entirely, for the purpose of “safety”. What could possibly be safe about censorship? What could possibly be safe about a group of people who claim to be freedom fighters dictating who can speak and what can be said, based on whether or not we agree with them? Study any kind of world history and you will find that censorship has never been on the right side of it.
More to the point, the world is not a safe place. It is extremely dangerous, flawed, full of bloodshed and corruption. By sheltering ourselves from its harshness we are doing nothing meaningful to change it. If we are serious about confronting power we must throw ourselves into the danger and hurt that so many people have no choice but to live with. While self-care is necessary to sustain us in the long run, avoiding the darkness entirely is nothing more than a cop out.
Folks, do the world a favour…stop with the safe spaces and trigger warnings, and get serious about changing the world. It is not always going to be fun and pleasant. We are not always going to feel liberated. It is going to hurt. It is going to scare the shit out of us at times. But if the struggle is worth it to you, if activism is not just a trendy thing for you to be involved with so you can convince yourself that you’re not complacent in injustices, then you will step out of your comfort zone and finally understand that comfort is in itself a sign of the power and privilege you wish to challenge.
I get the concept of safe spaces. We use them on the internet all the time. Subreddits, subforums, topics, literally everything is a safespace when you get a group of people in a place and control what can be said there, either literally through mod rule or through social cues.
Ahr river
Yeah, safe spaces have existed for a long time now, and will continue to exist so long as we have any form of moderation in the world.
Read my stories!
Shop Owner
Yes, but college campuses shouldn't be safe spaces.
Ahr river
It depends on what type. I've seen some overreactions to college issues, and I've also seen minor things being blown out of proportion. College should be at least somewhat safe so that people can properly learn. As a result it will mean a pull and tug between students and teachers as that balance is found.
I tend to sympathize with students, if only because they are often risking crippling amounts of debt and more, so I don't feel too bad if they think they deserve a few things for the obscene amount they pay.
Read my stories!
Unless you go to a public college, in which case it's free 
Ahr river
The Mod with the Migraine
Taking my reply to the censorship thread.
That’s the epitome of privilege right there, not considering armed nazis a threat to your life. - Silasw
In all honesty, I'm starting to think the definition of SJW is "anybody to the left of the Spanish Inqusition".
Blowout soon fellow Stalker
Pretty much
Oh really when?
Absolutely no relation to NLK
Really depends on who you ask. I've seen if misused a lot, and then again I've seen people who fir the definition like a glove.
Dopants: He meant what he said and he said what he meant, a Ninety is faithful 100%.
I have not seen "SJW" been used specifically against one specific person. I have seen it used to mean 'extremists'. As far as I know the term "SJW" does get used by reasonable people pushing for social change that doesn't boil down to, say, "all men are sexist pigs" or "women should shut up because they already have achieved gender equality".
edited 21st Feb '16 9:41:20 PM by hellomoto
A procrastination in of itself
Thing is doesn't this already happen as is? You can change your forum avatar and (i belive if you inform the mods) your actual forum name on a whim, making you seem like a totally different person. Sure nobody actually expects your avatar to be what you look like but we still connect it to a person
edited 22nd Feb '16 12:58:21 AM 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
Also, you could make a new account. Applies not just to these forums but also other forums and discussion places on the internet.
"The future is now."
That such people are obviously malicious and have maliciously decided to join such groups, any attempts to talk them round would be a waste of time and would simply be allowing such people to deliberately waste your time, even if you think you're making progress it was argued that you wouldn't be, such people would just be faking it so as to waste your time.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ Cyran