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
I excluded any rampage killing that occurred before 1980. This pares down the number of eligible events by quite a bit. I did that because the ones before 1980 often had little to no data about them, and going too far back in time makes the context of our society change too much. I saw an article on google saying in the past thirty years there had been 61 mass murder events, so I matched my timeframe to that as well to help gauge how complete the data on wikipedia was. The reason my number is a bit higher is I was counting killers, not events (columbine and a few others had 2).
As for your other point, I agree that with 69 events we can't call it a white issue. My point is that either we conclude there's not enough data to truly support a hypothesis of declining privilege as a factor in spree killings, or we can use what little polluted data we have and come to the same conclusion.
I do think it's fair to say it's a men's issue though. Men are more violent across the board, not just in mass murders.
Racial pressures do affect the mentality of the killers. As I posted before, white hate was a justification in some. Black rage was cited as the killer's reason in another. One or two more incidents had a backdrop of a racially charged atmosphere, and this was all found without an in-depth analysis of each case. However, my bone to pick isn't with the claim that people experience race. My bone to pick is with the statement "Every killer makes his pain another’s problem. But only those who’ve marinated in privilege can conclude that their private pain is the entire world’s problem with which to deal. This is why, while men of all races and classes murder their intimate partners, it is privileged young white dudes who are by far the likeliest to shoot up schools and movie theaters."
The hypothesis of that statement is that white men as a whole disproportionately perform mass murders thanks to their privilege. There is no data at all to support this conclusion. I don't deny that it can be a single killers' motive, and that there is value in looking at that. What I take issue with is the unjustified and wrong demonization of the group.
I was also quite surprised how many of the killers were over 35. That was just an eyeball thing, but there were a lot of them. Considering most crime is done by 20ish year olds I thought that was interesting.
edited 22nd Dec '12 7:21:23 AM by Hapo
You guys totally misread my point. Never did I say this was a race problem. This isa human problem that effects different races differently and that needs to be examined and carefully researched in order to solve these problems.
I don't buy the "white men are the majority population" because to me it's a cop out. Just because they are the majority doesn't mean there isn't specific problems and pressures that could be motivating white men to this very methodical and specific type of violence.
If you can't tell, I'm advocating for men now. They're not just one lump mass. They deserve careful and individual treatment. Even within the white men who committed these crimes there are going to be drastic differences that need to be studied and understood. And brushing it under the umbrella of majority and math isn't helpful to me.
And never did I say I agreed with the article on piviledge as a contributing factor, but I am open to more research and more investigation along those lines as well as what I mentioned with how much access do white males have to mental health compared to their Asian or African counterparts? I can't find reliable numbers on that. Again, not saying it's a definitave, but it's worth looking into.
Some in this thread have argued men are being left behind in schools or that they are being femininzed be society to rule out aggression in their play. Let's see if that is a correlation. It can't hurt. It can only help.
And racial pressures are a big factor in developing males. I have never seen a woman flinch when a medium build white guy steps in the elevator. But they sure jump around my slender black boyfriend. All men are under different pressures to preform and "be a man". But depending on your ethnic and cultural makeup that "man" is different. We need to look into it and see what is the same, what is different, and how we can help.
We can't take these factors in singularity. It's not just economics, just masculinity, or just mental illness. It's not black and white. We may never know for certain, but I rather exhaust all possible contributing factors through careful and scholastic research driven by compassion and help some problems unstead of just discounting it as math and nothing gets done.
I don't want mass killings to become normalized. They're on the decline. Awesome. Let's do all we can to keep the trend down and out as much as possible.
"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - AszurHoly shit that was awesome.
I agree as well, especially on the last point. Hell, that's basic psychology and basic sociology: Understanding a person's mind or analyzing societal trends (respectively) by looking at as many potential contributing factors as possible. Ruling out anything would just be lazy and inaccurate.
Insert witty and clever quip here. My page, as the database hates my handle.The problem with dealing with this sort of thing...and why it won't happen...is that to try and deal with this sort of thing we need to almost start with the mindset that the shooter is a victim as well, albeit of a different flavor.
And that's simply a non-starter, and why it'll never be done.
Democracy is the process in which we determine the government that we deserve
I don't see why that's so hard. The correlation between abuse >> abuser/ victim >> victimiser is well understood. <shrugs>
It's that well understood, you get story-lines on it in various films and TV serials. About time the rest of the media caught up.
edited 23rd Dec '12 9:30:59 AM by Euodiachloris
Part of that reason is complacency. Part of it is fear. It's not really fun to sit there and point out problems in society that are creating situations for people to become so hurt they feel they have to hurt others. But to that I say we need to grow up.
It sucks. It's not easy. But it's a needed trail we need to go through if we wish to evolve and make any sort of social progress, regardless if it's in reassessing gender norms, social expectations, or mental health acceptance and awareness.
I agree that it would be very hard for this conversation to happen. But I don't really see how things can get better for anyone unless we start pushing now. Hopefully this will happen. We just have to stay on it.
"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - AszurMost quality and respected research centers take at least 6 months to a year to draw up the study, another year almost to secure the funding, set up the applicants, etc. then 10-14 months (at least) to carry it out.
This isn't like you can just pop these out from no where. And because they take so much time, this can hopefully lead to goo studies while the initial shock and emotional outcry is chilling down. This also means that we have to be careful because if there is not enough social interest or it's not considered a good enough priority that it can't get past approval or can't get funding.
It's a fine line, but it's possible to walk it well. I worry that America's short attention span combined with the desire for a quick fix will drastically impede progress on this front. But I can't help but just hope for the best, try to have constructive conversations with a variety of people, and keep researching mental health programs to know who is the best organization(s) to throw my support behind.
Maybe I'm just an idealist, but I found it's not very healthy to be bitter and cynical. (Not saying anyone in this thread is, just explaining my outlook.)
"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - AszurNo, I agree with it, and I'm not trying to stone wall any actual attempt at progress.
What I'm trying to say is that convincing people that mass-murderers are victims is a process that is going to need to be changed a layer at a time in my opinion. Part of the issue is going to have to be placing pragmatism as the top priority in social justice, regardless of emotion. For example, let's say that it was discovered that placing violent offenders in comfortable, enjoyable correctional facilities equivalent to a day spa drastically reduces the number of rapes/other violent crimes that happen in a year. (This is not too far from what some countries are actually doing, incidentally.) Do you think people are going to accept that putting rapists in accomodations that most of us can't even afford on our own vacations is going to be accepted, even if you trot out numbers that support your claim? Regardless of what you say, most people are going to say this isn't "fair".
The only way you'll be able to do that is if you first convince people that pragmatic answers are more important than catharsis for the victims and what's "fair" for society. If you don't do that first, people are going to fight whatever you propose with everything they've got, because it doesn't fit their idea of "fair". It's not fair to them, because they're being "punished" for being well-adjusted, law-abiding citizens, and it's not fair to the victims of these crimes and their families, because you're "rewarding" their murderers/rapists, whatever. You have to slowly make people come to understand that this sort of pragmatism is important to curb victims, but human beings suck at that sort of thing. For us, what has happened always has more weight than what might happen.
edited 25th Dec '12 1:43:17 AM by KingZeal
See, I don't think that should be our first go to option. It works for other countries because they have a completely different cultural and political makeup (priority in education over defense, multiple political parties, different expectations in government roles, etc.)
Prision reform of any kind will be horribly difficult because the majority of prisions in America are private, not publically owned. So that is a system ingrained with flaws we probably need to fleece out from the ground up.
As much as I would like to see that happen, especially due to the deliberate unjustices done towards mostly minority men through this system, that's not what I think needs to happen first.
Again, more candid talks about mental illness, the normalization of the scale of which someone can be afflicted, overhaul of the medical system to allow for more treatment and the normalization of screenings and evaluations. My son is on state insurance and is mandated a physical, eye exam, and two teeth cleanings a year. It wouldn't be too hard to just add a mental health checkup as well. I know the Affordable Health Care Act will pay for a mental screening if recommended by your PCP, but it shouldn't be hard to make it part of the process.
Having an open and honest national conversation on mental health and normalizing routine check ups can help change our cultural attitudes towards mental illness and help shift our priorities in other ways like education and prision reform.
Besides,if the public is better educated, they will be more willing to see the difference between those who are genuinely afflicted with a mental illness and those who are just using it for a crutch or excuse. Just because you have a mental illness doesn't excuse you from spending time in prision depending on the individual case.
That also involves the medical community to get their heads together too.
I feel if we fix the mental and health problems we have, or at least start talking about it more, that attitude can grow into other fields like political and criminal reform. I think it's quite possible.
But we just have to be careful to build our goals on a solid foundation ad be careful how we proceed in these dialouges and reforms. America is bad about creating self sabatoging situations to cater to their insecurities when it comes to policy. So it'll not be easy. But I don't see the health of our nation improving unless we try.
"Psssh. Even if you could catch a miracle on a picture any person would probably delete it to make space for more porn." - AszurI think it's supposed to be a joke, but I saw this
and had to facepalm at it.
It wasn't a very clever joke in the first place.
Insert witty and clever quip here. My page, as the database hates my handle.Eh, I thought it was funny. If we don't laugh at ourselves other people will beat us to it.
Still, the still-fledgling Men's Rights Movement is enough of a joke already. No need to make it worse.
If I were to write some of the strange things that come under my eyes they would not be believed. ~Cora M. Strayer~![]()
Right. A complete joke. There's just something inherently funny about a movement to fight the oppression by the system of the group that set up that system.
Just looking at the Double Standard page had me scratching my head. The Men Are Generic, Women Are Special trope is cited as being sexist to men. I don't get that. Being the "default" group usually works in that group's favor - the same way it gives white people "white privelege", since they're seen as the "default group". Most of the tropes that are said to be sexist to men are manifestations of that trope, and the belief that men are the stronger sex. You get the privelege of being viewed as the stronger sex. That's a benefit! You can apply for a job as an engineer, construction worker, or president, and no one looks at you funny for it, because as a man, "you're strong enough to handle it". So, yes, she expects you to pay for the date.
edited 27th Dec '12 10:01:57 PM by TrueRuby
I think that is an overly simple way of looking at things. I mean, yes, traditional gender roles were/are constructed to give power to men . But it's so much more complicated than men deciding that men are better and then imposing that on all of the women. If it was that simple, sexism would be easy to fight and we'd have got rid of it by now.
But it is not that simple. Traditional gender roles hurt men in some scenarios (let's leave aside the ultimately derailing issue of 'but women have it worse!' for the moment). Just because the system is set up to give them power, doesn't really mean they have 'freedom', or that they can never be disadvantaged by anything ever.
For example, a man has the freedom to be a construction worker, yeah. But that contributes zero towards his freedom to become a nurse or a dressmaker or something feminine.
edited 27th Dec '12 10:15:45 PM by LoniJay
Be not afraid...If I wore a dress in public just, like, 50 years ago in most places, I would probably get the shit beaten out of me. These days, thanks to the erosion of gender norms, I'd just get disapproving stares, in most places. I'd probably still get the shit beaten out of me in some places. The patriarchy hurts me, even through I'm a man. Hierarchy always hurts both the oppressors and the oppressed.
I'm not saying that men's rights is a joke, just that the current Men's Rights Movement is. From what I've seen its one giant excuse for guys to behave like misogynistic ass-clowns, and for that reason I refuse to identify with it.
Nowhere in there did I say that men don't have issues -we do, and they need to be addressed- but calling a turd a gold nugget doesn't mean you can dig in your toilet to fund the Federal Reserve.
If I were to write some of the strange things that come under my eyes they would not be believed. ~Cora M. Strayer~![]()
You make a good point, and I agree that the sexism affects both men and women, but men can't blame women for it. Since the system was set up by men, after all, women had almost no hand in determining how men who don't fit in with traditional gender roles are treated. There are plenty of sexist women out there, but the majority of hiring decisions (and other times when that sexism could adversely affect men), are made by men. So, basically, the fight against sexism toward men is against other men.

@2952 Karalora: "But yeah, my point is that if there are going to be mass shootings, you'd expect the perpetrators to be those who have greatest access to the kind of weapons that make mass shootings feasible."
That may not narrow it down as much as you think though. Based on what I've been reading about how mass shootings are actually done, the kind of weapon in question would probably be "nearly any modern semi-automatic". Most of the guns in civilian hands in the US qualify. Precisely what a shooter does will vary depends on the particular gun involved, but it really doesn't seem to take much other than "can be reloaded fairly quickly" to get the same end result.
"So... the time has come for you to meet your demise..."