TVTropes Now available in the app store!
Open

Follow TV Tropes

Following

Sexism and Men's Issues

Go To

MOD NOTE: Please note the following part of the forum rules:

If you don't like a thread, don't post in it. Posting in a thread simply to say you don't like it, or that it's stupid, or to point out that you 'knew who made it before you even clicked on it', or to predict that it will end badly will get you warned.

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

deathpigeon Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: One True Dodecahedron
#3001: Dec 27th 2012 at 10:51:16 PM

[up] Indeed it is men against men, but, to fight against it, we must start with ourselves. Women cannot liberate us anymore than we can liberate women. Until we have removed the shackles from our minds that constrain us to the patriarchy, abandoning both the power it gives us and the restrictions it has placed upon us, can we hope to be truly free of it.

The point is, it's men against men because it has to be men against men to free the men, just as it had to be and still has to be women against men to free the women.

LoniJay from Australia Since: Dec, 2009 Relationship Status: Pining for the fjords
#3002: Dec 27th 2012 at 11:15:16 PM

It's men and women against men and women, and also men and women against themselves. I have met sexist women before, and everybody who wasn't raised by wolves probably has some internalised sexism hiding somewhere.

Be not afraid...
Besserwisser from Planet of Hats Since: Dec, 2009
#3003: Dec 27th 2012 at 11:20:06 PM

Sexism is often more enforced by the own gender than the opposite, that's the nature of things. I have my preservations about the idea that men alone set up the previous system primarily because it would show a lack of agency in women but I'm not gonna talk extensively about that.

And being viewed as strong actually benefits you very little. What's the consequence of being viewed as strong? Well, you're expected to solve problems, protect others and survive dangerous situations. The latter results in Men Are the Expendable Gender although I do believe that's the cause of Men Are Strong, Women Are Pretty but that's hard to proove. This results in things like me having to be checked for the draft while my sister never had to deal with that.

edited 27th Dec '12 11:21:48 PM by Besserwisser

deathpigeon Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: One True Dodecahedron
#3004: Dec 27th 2012 at 11:34:22 PM

[up][up] My point still stands. People need to liberate themselves. We cannot merely hand them liberty and expect them to be free. Everyone needs to fight for liberty, not just women, or it will only be women who we truly free, and men will remain shackled by the chains of the patriarchy that exist in their mind.

TrueRuby Since: May, 2012
#3005: Dec 27th 2012 at 11:47:46 PM

[up][up]Yes, there are definite consequences of being viewed as strong. There are benefits too, like those I mentioned. I won't say which outweighs the other. However, if men are going to accept the benefits of their stronger sex status, they should also accept the drawbacks. It's kind of like women who say that women are just as strong as men, but then want men to hold doors for them. It just doesn't work that way. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

[up]Agreed deathpigeon. Attitude is everything.

edited 27th Dec '12 11:48:27 PM by TrueRuby

Besserwisser from Planet of Hats Since: Dec, 2009
#3006: Dec 27th 2012 at 11:56:28 PM

[up] Who said I wanted the benefit? Especially when the benefit is "not being looked at funny when doing things associated with strength" that's something all people should have, not a unique privilege that I would somehow lose when people were treated equally. I do want equality and that does include those supposed benefits that supposedly benefits me.

LoniJay from Australia Since: Dec, 2009 Relationship Status: Pining for the fjords
#3007: Dec 27th 2012 at 11:56:48 PM

@deathpigeon: I suppose my problem with the 'men's rights is a fight that must be fought by men against men' or 'it is men's role to rid other men of sexism' ideas is... it seems to fall once again into the habit of treating sex/gender as something that defines a person. You know, acting as if the differences between the two sexes are so dramatic and important that the groups are more different than they are alike and should always be treated that way.

I thought that this idea was somewhat in opposition to gender equality (although some acknowledgement of social differences and stuff like that is necessary, of course).

edited 28th Dec '12 12:01:00 AM by LoniJay

Be not afraid...
deathpigeon Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: One True Dodecahedron
#3008: Dec 27th 2012 at 11:57:31 PM

If we abolish the patriarchy without men fighting for men's rights and men abandoning our place on top, we will forever restrict and shackle ourselves.

[up] Sex and gender are things that define us, which is a part of the problem. Class similarly defines us, but it is only by each class struggling to free them from the hierarchical class structure that we can abolish it. The end goal is for sex and gender to not define us, but the reality of the present is that it does.

edited 28th Dec '12 12:00:06 AM by deathpigeon

drunkscriblerian Street Writing Man from Castle Geekhaven Since: Oct, 2010 Relationship Status: In season
Street Writing Man
#3009: Dec 28th 2012 at 12:04:04 AM

See, the problem as I see it is that society wants to assign a value judgement towards certain types of labor...and that worthy causes attract scum.

I'll try to explain this by example. In my relationship with DG, I make the money and she does the housework. This isn't because she's a girl and I'm a guy, it's because I have a job and she doesn't. Someone has to pay the bills, someone has to maintain the house, we both live here, so it shakes out that way.

Now, I don't regard myself as innately superior to DG because I'm the breadwinner...it just shook out that way. Without her, I'd have to do my own laundry, cook my own meals, manage my own finances in addition to working 40-50 hours a week at a hard job. Sure I'd have a little more money...but I'd have a lot less time. I see her contribution as fair and equal to my own. And if she got a job, we'd re-negotiate the workload...because all of a sudden she's bringing in money and I need to alter my contribution to reflect hers.

This is how I was raised to act. In the house I grew up in, the mantra was "everybody works, everybody eats" - a reflection on how dinner was prepared. To eat in my house, you had to contribute to the meal somehow. You either had to go and get the food *

, you had to help prepare the food, or you had to clean up the mess that resulted from cooking and eating. If you didn't want to pitch in, obviously you weren't that hungry.

Like a lot of kids, I resented having to do chores. I drew the dishes because hey, I was five. When I would complain - and I did a lot of that, because I was five - , my mom's response was always the same; "so learn to cook".

Basically what she was trying to tell me - and what it took me a few years to learn - was that if you want to benefit you have to contribute. The other thing that I learned was that everyone's contribution is equally important to the result.

One problem that equal-rights activists - men and women alike - run into is the idea that one person's contribution is somehow superior or inferior to another's...that some work is somehow "better" or "more valuable", when really the whole cannot exist without each of its parts. The other problem is people with an inflated idea of their own importance twisting a perfectly legitimate request for equality into a reason why they shouldn't have to do work.

When it comes to gender roles, the war isn't for equality but against narrow thinking. A man who stays home and takes care of the house and children isn't less of a man...he's putting in his time and doing his share, same as a woman would if she were in a similar situation. That's not laziness, weakness or a lack of "manliness"...that's a person owning their responsibilities and pitching in. When feminism speaks about patriarchy and how it hurts men too, I believe that's what their trying to get across...that our traditionally narrow gender roles keep men from being able to contribute a fair day's work in some ways, just like they keep women from contributing a fair day's work in other ways.

I'm basically for equality, so long as it results in everyone contributing an equal amount of their time in a way that benefits the greater whole. It's how I was raised, it works, and I'll continue to support that concept until someone comes along with something better...which I haven't seen yet, really.

What I don't like about both the Feminist and Men's Rights movements is not their stated goal...its that they are both chock full of freeloaders looking for a way to get out of putting in their work. It is those people - who have plenty of time to talk because they aren't working - who have been allowed to define the rhetoric of said movements...and that, in the long run, is what is harming them.

If I were to write some of the strange things that come under my eyes they would not be believed. ~Cora M. Strayer~
deathpigeon Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: One True Dodecahedron
#3010: Dec 28th 2012 at 12:20:24 AM

Personally, I see the struggle of the feminist to be the same as every other class struggle. Indeed, it is a class struggle between the class of men and the class of women. Like the rest, it is a hierarchy that must be abolished. However, freedom from it cannot be given, only taken. If we merely give people the freedom, they will still believe they must act in a certain way, so they will act in that way and they will not be free. Instead, they will reconstruct the patriarchy, in the same way that a working class given freedom will believe that there should be a class struggle, and, as such, will reconstruct it. That's why I see the Men's Right's movement to be so important. We cannot be given the freedom from the patriarchy from female feminists lest we reconstruct it for ourselves without women, restricting ourselves without the benefits that once came at the expense of the freedom of women. Liberty is the goal, and every class must fight toward it for themselves.

However, this class struggle is fundamentally different from the rest in one key way that make the Men's Rights movement even more important. The two classes are approximately equal in size. While, in the class struggle between the ruling class and the working class, if the working class frees themselves, and overthrows the ruling class, there will be far less people reconstructing the old hierarchy, while, in the class struggle between men and women, about half of the world's population would be doing so. That is why Men's Rights organizations are so important, even if the ones we have now are a joke. That's why men must fight for men's issues.

drunkscriblerian Street Writing Man from Castle Geekhaven Since: Oct, 2010 Relationship Status: In season
Street Writing Man
#3011: Dec 28th 2012 at 12:27:39 AM

That is why Men's Rights organizations are so important, even if the ones we have now are a joke. That's why men must fight for men's issues.

The problem is that the Men's Rights activists we have now are a joke. The best I've seen them do is take jabs at the various faults of feminism...and let's face it, finding hypocrisy in a social movement is just about the easiest intellectual sport one can engage in.

If men want their problems to get a fair hearing, we're going to have to do better than self-centered whining and yeah-well-me-too-ism. Women didn't advance their cause by such methods, and we can't either.

edited 28th Dec '12 12:28:49 AM by drunkscriblerian

If I were to write some of the strange things that come under my eyes they would not be believed. ~Cora M. Strayer~
deathpigeon Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: One True Dodecahedron
#3012: Dec 28th 2012 at 12:31:07 AM

And that is a problem. Men's Rights organizations as they are today encourage the classes to struggle against each other rather than with each other for the common goal of their abolition. Men's Rights organizations as they exist today are not only not helping, but they are actively hurting both causes.

drunkscriblerian Street Writing Man from Castle Geekhaven Since: Oct, 2010 Relationship Status: In season
Street Writing Man
#3013: Dec 28th 2012 at 12:33:41 AM

@death: well, feminism commits basically the same crime a lot of the time. It's an issue that bedevils a good many activist groups, actually...the ever-present temptation to turn a legitimate request into a reason why "I" shouldn't have to do my part.

(Hats off to the LGBT community for - so far, AFAIK - avoiding that trap.)

If I were to write some of the strange things that come under my eyes they would not be believed. ~Cora M. Strayer~
deathpigeon Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: One True Dodecahedron
#3014: Dec 28th 2012 at 12:52:00 AM

And it's just as bad when they do it. The goal should be the destruction of the classes of men and women, not the dominance of one of those classes over the other. Both feminists and men's rights groups fall into the trap of fighting for dominance. Both are doing wrong in doing so.

drunkscriblerian Street Writing Man from Castle Geekhaven Since: Oct, 2010 Relationship Status: In season
Street Writing Man
#3015: Dec 28th 2012 at 12:57:30 AM

@death: well, then you've moved the discussion into attacking a far more basic problem humanity has...in essence, you've made the enemy bigger.

No one ever said changing the world was easy.

If I were to write some of the strange things that come under my eyes they would not be believed. ~Cora M. Strayer~
deathpigeon Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: One True Dodecahedron
#3016: Dec 28th 2012 at 1:01:03 AM

That's the thing, the enemy is bigger, and the patriarchy is just a part of that. The enemy is hierarchy in all its forms. That's what the patriarchy is, in essence, a hierarchy.

drunkscriblerian Street Writing Man from Castle Geekhaven Since: Oct, 2010 Relationship Status: In season
Street Writing Man
#3017: Dec 28th 2012 at 1:07:44 AM

Well, the other part about doing work is that making decisions about what needs to be done and who needs to do it is also work...and someone needs to do that, too. I wouldn't go so far as to say that hierarchy itself is evil, because it serves a purpose. The problem is when people regard themselves as inherently superior because of their position in society.

Someone has to shovel shit, and someone has to count gold. One position cannot exist without the other. The man who handles gold is worth the same as the man who shovels shit...because both are putting in their time - you know, that one resource everyone has the same amount of? - to be productive towards the society they live in.

Now, my impulse would be to respect the shit-shoveler a lot more than the gold-counter because hey, his job is harder and he gets less.

But again, we're wandering a bit far afield from the topic. So, about them Men's Issues...

If I were to write some of the strange things that come under my eyes they would not be believed. ~Cora M. Strayer~
deathpigeon Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: One True Dodecahedron
#3018: Dec 28th 2012 at 1:13:24 AM

Sure, someone must count the gold and someone must shovel the shit, but neither should be above the other, nor should anyone be restricted to either job. In the same way, neither man nor woman should be above the other, and neither should be restricted to any role. Hierarchy is, by its nature, restrictive. Men and women are restricted by the patriarchy, and, thus, the majority cannot achieve their full potential, and the small minority who can achieve it can do so equally well without it. The patriarchy is one evil of many that we need to destroy, and we all need to struggle against it.

drunkscriblerian Street Writing Man from Castle Geekhaven Since: Oct, 2010 Relationship Status: In season
Street Writing Man
#3019: Dec 28th 2012 at 1:22:30 AM

I'll bite that men should not have started viewing their contribution as breadwinner as superior to woman's traditional role as housekeeper and child-raiser (that was kinda what I was saying above)...but let's also remember that no one wants to be judged in a fair contest and found wanting. Which is one of the big hamstring-cuts tripping up various facets of social activism.

I mean, let's be frank here; who likes failing? Especially when the only person you can blame is yourself?

edited 28th Dec '12 1:22:56 AM by drunkscriblerian

If I were to write some of the strange things that come under my eyes they would not be believed. ~Cora M. Strayer~
deathpigeon Since: Jan, 2001 Relationship Status: One True Dodecahedron
#3020: Dec 28th 2012 at 1:28:27 AM

I'm not just stopping there. I'm saying that men and women having set roles is a problem in of itself that is only made worse by men viewing themselves as above women.

I'm not sure how failing comes into this. I mean, sure no one wants to be judged in a fair contest and be found wanting, but no one wants to be judged in an unfair contest where they have the obvious advantage and be found wanting, either.

Guest1001 Since: Oct, 2010
#3021: Dec 28th 2012 at 2:44:02 PM

The problem is that the Men's Rights activists we have now are a joke. The best I've seen them do is take jabs at the various faults of feminism...and let's face it, finding hypocrisy in a social movement is just about the easiest intellectual sport one can engage in.

If men want their problems to get a fair hearing, we're going to have to do better than self-centered whining and yeah-well-me-too-ism. Women didn't advance their cause by such methods, and we can't either.

It sounds like you need to cast your net a bit wider. Read a Warren Farrell, Christina Hoff Summers or Nathanson & Young book. While some do point out feminism's faults, it's usually to give more of a historical context; they outline the fault, then the issues that stem from it.

As for what you call "yeah-well-me-too-ism", I don't see how that can be avoided. I assume you mean whenever you see comments saying "[x] issue affects men too". Basically, that reaction occurs whenever a person has a problem with an article/interview, etc. that outlines something as a women-only issue when they see it as something that affects both sexes. The only way to stop that reaction is for the article writer/interviewee to start including both sexes. That's a men's issue in itself; what you're asking for is for men not to speak out about inequality. To that, I would have to ask "why not?" It's like telling men they should learn their place or "sit there and take it".

Kzickas Since: Apr, 2009
#3022: Dec 28th 2012 at 3:27:33 PM

The dominant voices by far in the gender discourse are feminism and social conservatism. If someone is actively engaged in gender politics outside those to factions it's almost certainly because they're not satisfied with the views of either. So the fact that MR As will disagree with feminists is more or less inevitable. The hostility however isn't. There's a lot of antagonistic people on both sides, but honestly I feel that the feminist side is a good deal worse. Even the MR As who think the entire current feminist movement is crap don't tend to say that it's inevietable that anyone who wants to deal with women's issues is a horrible person. Like this article I just read does: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/12/18/why-progressive-mens-movements-are-bound-to-fail/. She straight out says that the only way a movement to deal with men's issues can be acceptable is if it focuses on women's issues.

Basically, that reaction occurs whenever a person has a problem with an article/interview, etc. that outlines something as a women-only issue when they see it as something that affects both sexes.

Not necessarily. It's possible to only focus on dealing a problem for one group without denying that it also happens to others. In reality what you describe is the usual explanation however. To the extent that it's not the best solution is to have actual men's movements/spaces where the male aspect are discussed.

Besserwisser from Planet of Hats Since: Dec, 2009
#3023: Dec 28th 2012 at 3:38:52 PM

It's possible to only focus on dealing a problem for one group without denying that it also happens to others.
To that I would say when an entire article for example is filled with complains about group A being treated unfairly and than one little paragraph saying "oh, and btw it happens to group B, too" that's still not right, at least when we talk about issues that affect both sides about equally. Pointing out how a group focusses on a certain clientel is valid criticism and should be treated as such, especially when the debate is totally dominated by one or two sides and adressing any issues from a different perspective is almost impossible without adressing that side.

drunkscriblerian Street Writing Man from Castle Geekhaven Since: Oct, 2010 Relationship Status: In season
Street Writing Man
#3024: Dec 28th 2012 at 10:59:07 PM

As for what you call "yeah-well-me-too-ism", I don't see how that can be avoided. I assume you mean whenever you see comments saying "[x] issue affects men too".

Except when some issues are totally different. Some male problems are rooted in the fact that men have been dominant for so long and that is changing, and some of us don't fit that mold. Such an issue doesn't really have a female counterpart.

Also, it's always better to speak with your own voice. Saying "yeah, well, me too" when someone else speaks of a problem paints you as a follower...you're latching on to an already-extant movement, and that reduces your legitimacy. Saying "I have this problem" is usually more productive; it puts forth the idea that you're willing to stand up for yourself and your own issues.

BTW, thanks for the reading list. I'll look into that. I'd like the MRM to be something other than ceaseless bitching.

If I were to write some of the strange things that come under my eyes they would not be believed. ~Cora M. Strayer~
TrueRuby Since: May, 2012
#3025: Dec 29th 2012 at 12:21:10 AM

I don't think there's anything wrong with someone talking about an issue as it affects a given group, even if it affects other groups as well. It's possible the issue may affect different groups in different ways, so it makes sense to address them separately. Sexism, specifically, definitely affects men and women in completely different ways. Different movements are required.

MR As aren't seriously whining because feminists aren't advocating for men's rights, are they?


Total posts: 22,924
Top