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
Hmm, and is the same not true of MRAs? Actually, the entire point of it seems to be this...
edited 4th Jan '13 6:40:45 AM by TenTailsBeast
I vowed, and so did you: Beyond this wall- we would make it through.Except that feminists bring up issues of sexism BEFORE MR As start bringing counterarguments.
Still irrelevant. The same issue is brought up about racism. There are very, very good reasons why whites are still in proportionately higher classes and qualities of life than other minorities (particularly blacks), and black people have a LOT of their own issues that do nothing to help their situations. Lots of hate groups use this to argue that classism and racism are only correlated and classism is not a direct cause of racism.
But it's tomayto and tomahto. The fact that there is a discrepancy is more important than twiddling thumbs over whose fault it is. I'm absolutely sure that there are other factors besides overt sexism that affect wage gaps, but it's sexist to NOT try and neutralize or minimize those factors. Prejudice is not just an active desire to screw over another group. It's also ignorance and apathy (willful or otherwise) to the plights of those groups. That's the entire point of privilege.
edited 4th Jan '13 6:41:52 AM by KingZeal
Not in the common sense meaning, but in the usual social justice meaning it does.
I would rather say similar conditions exist in discussions about male suffering. Certainly your description of the view of men's position is more similar to the perception of black people than that of white people in that you have in both cases objectively worse conditions being explained away by appealing to stereotyped assertions about the groups.
You can't start a discussion about which group is more privileged and then complain about oppression olympics.
I think the point is that the hostility is mutual rather than one sided from the MRA side.
edited 4th Jan '13 6:47:24 AM by Kzickas
No it doesn't.
Yes you can. Oppression olympics is "yeah, but" and not "yeah, and". That's the entire point of it.
No it isn't. "Yeah but" means you're not willing to talk about one group's issues unless you also talk about another group's.
On the other hand, "Yeah AND" is inevitable because it means talking about one group's issues IN ADDITION TO other issues and how they can both be solved at the same time.
edited 4th Jan '13 6:55:10 AM by KingZeal
Exactly what I said. "Except that feminists bring up issues of sexism BEFORE MR As start bringing counterarguments."
MRA issues are often brought up as counterarguments against feminist issues. "We can't talk about feminism unless we also talk about this other stuff." Arguments about males used as fanservice is never brought up until women complain about how they're nothing but eye candy, and the argument is always used as a reason why we should NOT fix one problem unless X.
That has nothing to do with an argument being "FIRST" like an inane You Tube comment. Guest would have a case if I'd said something like "men can't talk about being greater victims of violence because women were here talking about how hard it is to wear heels first".
That attitude requires someone on the other side who accepts that there might be more than one group with problems worth dealing with.
Except the discussion is never about neutralizing those factors its always about how we can get from a situation where the most dangerous and uncomfortable jobs are done by men, where the most inconvenient shifts are filled by men and men are on average paid more as a result to a world where all of that is the same except men aren't even paid more for it.
If you have a situation of trade offs, some benefits and some disadvantages, and the other party says that all your benefits should be removed because its unfair that you only benefit then of course you'd point out the disadvantages.
Edit: there are plenty of exemples of MRA "yeah and"s. Voluntary parenthood, equal custody, protecting the rights of the accused in sex crime cases, advocating for gender neutral sex crimes laws.
edited 4th Jan '13 7:15:30 AM by Kzickas
![]()
The problem with that is that it's simply untrue. Let's say a men's rights blog features criticism of the lack of men's domestic violence shelters for several months. Then along comes a biased article about domestic violence that only mentions female victims. Naturally, the comments section features heavy criticism that male victims weren't mentioned. Just because you didn't see the men's rights blog doesn't mean the criticism of the lack of male domestic violence shelters wasn't there. It existed, you just didn't bother to look because you had no interest in men's rights.
And it actually pains me to have to write that because it's so obvious. I don't get how you couldn't realise that prejudice against men is always being criticised. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, so how anyone could think "well, they only bring it up in response to women's issues" is beyond me.
I rarely see MRA arguments being about "we should sit on our butt and do nothing". It's almost always about doing something, just not something feminists argue for. Gender symmetry in domestic violence cases is brought up because MR As want more help for male victims, not less help for female victims.
Sure it does. And it also requires that they cooperate with the other group rather than oppose it.
I agree with feminism being too focused on solving ONLY women's problems. I have run into numerous feminists who thumb their noses at issues of paternity fraud when it's mentioned along with maternity rights, so I know for a fact that these issues are real. The difference is that I don't think their indifference to paternity fraud automatically disqualifies their arguments about maternity rights.
Then focus your counterargument on those jobs, not the wage gap in general. Use a scalpel instead of a hammer.
That's a Perfect Solution Fallacy.
And it actually pains me to have to write that because it's so obvious. I don't get how you couldn't realise that prejudice against men is always being criticised. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it doesn't exist, so how anyone could think "well, they only bring it up in response to women's issues" is beyond me.
Except that's almost never how MRA arguments actually work. I have no problem with pointing out that a problem affects men and women and thus we have more reason to try to get rid of it. MRA groups almost always argue that you can't get rid of a problem unless you do it for BOTH groups.
That part is fine, but again, it almost never is brought up in that context.
edited 4th Jan '13 7:18:48 AM by KingZeal
Well, I'd certainly like to know if you read the article rather than just the title. AVFM welcomes gay men, bans people for homophobia and has a section in their forum for men in gay relationships (as well as men in straight relationships, men who choose to stay single, etc). AVFM posted an article recently that publicly criticised and decried a men's rights blogger that liked to use terms such as "fag supporter" (I think). The article you posted seemed more like a call for gay men to switch to the MRM to me.
I did read that article. These two paragraphs particularly stood out:
But of course, they did not do these things because they were gay. They did these things because they were men. Solving problems and making advances is what men do, and there is no evidence to suggest that gay men are any less proficient at it than straight men.
Nice job veiling your sexism there, Paul.
The whole article, in fact, is basically him saying 'gay men are completely wrong about they should want and it is my duty as a straight man to show them the Right Way'. It's a gleaming monument of privileged, white-man's-burden arrogance with an intricate marble casing of casual sexism, which sometimes arcs out into mighty buttresses of rabid paranoia:
Gay men are and always have been resented because they provide no utility to women. They are literally born free of the constraining and egregiously burdensome expectations that heterosexual men are still raised to fulfill.
In regards to Register-Her, I object to their methods because they're explicitly a silencing tactic, and the method of silencing is almost invariably to 'fuck their shit up' through flooding the site's targets with death and rape threats. Unless, of course, you believe that what we really need in the gender-politics discourse is more rape threats.
edited 4th Jan '13 7:25:49 AM by Iaculus
What's precedent ever done for us?Regarding suicide rates, men aren't as a rule more depressed or suicidal (opposite, actually), they just tend to turn to more lethal methods of suicide than women. And as far as men suffering from violence, well the perpetrators are overwhelmingly men themselves, so it's not clear how you could see this as refuting male privilege per se.
And regarding homelessness in men:
Second, it is necessary not to erase the existence of women who are homeless. Even though men are more likely to be homeless, homelessness is a lot more gender equal than a lot of people present it. The primary causes of homelessness– poverty, lack of affordable housing, unemployment– affect everyone, regardless of gender. A large percentage of the increase in homeless families is probably caused by the recession: unemployment and lack of affordable housing were the two most commonly cited causes of the increase in homeless families.
Third, it is important to note that there may be reasons why women are more likely to be housed than men that still don’t mean the women are in a particularly good situation. For instance, women are more likely to participate in survival sex in exchange for housing. “Survival sex or homelessness,” however, is one of those dilemmas that really leaves no one in a particularly good situation.
And it is interesting to note that this goes way back. Did male privilege never exist, then?
I vowed, and so did you: Beyond this wall- we would make it through.I seem to remember us getting into this a lot at the end of the Tropes Vs Women In Video Games thread, Zeal. Besser and myself wanting equality, you claiming to want equality but it being impossible to argue for in the scenario you'd constructed; women's issues would always take precedent.
The whole article, in fact, is basically him saying 'gay men are completely wrong about they should want and it is my duty as a straight man to show them the Right Way'. It's a gleaming monument of privileged, white-man's-burden arrogance with an intricate marble casing of casual sexism, which sometimes arcs out into mighty buttresses of rabid paranoia
Uh ... no. It praises gay men on their contributions and acknowledges the equality of all men regardless of sexuality. And "veiling his sexism"? You'd have to be outrageously sensitive to take an article that praises men as an insult against women.
Do you have any evidence to show that the site's targets have received death and rape threats?
edited 4th Jan '13 7:27:53 AM by Guest1001
Not sexist? -_-
I vowed, and so did you: Beyond this wall- we would make it through.![]()
You didn't see the tiniest hint of gender-essentialism in 'they did it because they were men', or 'solving problems and making advances is what men do'? Seriously? Or in the idea that homophobia is a conspiracy by women to marginalise and eliminate any men who might not prove useful to them? Are you being deliberately obtuse?
edited 4th Jan '13 7:29:28 AM by Iaculus
What's precedent ever done for us?I didn't want "equality" in the way you promoted it, because it's inherently UNequal.
edited 4th Jan '13 7:30:32 AM by KingZeal
There's a difference from saying that "privilege" exists, in some forms or another, and saying that you can just make a blanket statement that "male privilege" exists. There's a huge difference there.
The first is saying that in specific situations, we tend to assume better of one group than another, and as such one group ends up being in a better position than another. I don't think that's controversial. Pretty much everybody here (and in most of the world) will agree that sexism/racism/whateverism exists, even if we disagree on specifics.
The second, however, is saying (even if it's not intended) that in every situation possible, men are always more privileged over women because they have more "power". This isn't a strawman argument. This is the actual argument that people make. That without power, one can't be acting in a sexist/racist fashion. This is the argument that moderate MRA's and Egalitarians are fighting against, because we think that not only does it actually harm the real issues that men face, it doesn't do anything for the real issues that women face either.
The focus on power dynamics is the issue here.
I'm still someone who thinks that generally speaking, men are a bit more privileged than women. I think that's because there's a natural thing where aggressive behavior is rewarded more than passive behavior, and men tend to be more aggressive. But even then, I totally reject the focus on blanket power dynamics, as to be honest, it cannot exist without embracing gender roles. And embracing those gender roles is the root of sexism.
Democracy is the process in which we determine the government that we deserveI disagree. Feminists can be however focused on women's problems they want. Including 100%. The problem is the twin assumptions common in feminism that a)men are a privileged group and b)that it's impossible to be oppressed for being a member of a privileged group. That view doesn't leave any other option open but oppression olympics.
Only if you see the proposed solution as good. And someone who's facing having their life made worse based on an either wrong or deceptive presentation of their experiences has no reason to see it as an improvement, however small.
I don't see how sharing a gender with your attacker is a benifit that could, partially or completely, make up for the increased risk of being attacked.
I think you'd need to be a historian to have any hope of telling. There are certainly a lot of male disprivileges that go a long way back, and some we are thankfully rid off, but there are also lots of female disprivileges that we are thankfully rid off.
Hmm? I don't believe that's the case at all...Nobody's saying that race or class have no effect, or that male longevity is longer...Or that sexism doesn't harm any men.
I vowed, and so did you: Beyond this wall- we would make it through.It is impossible to be oppressed as a member of a privileged group.
That doesn't mean that the privileged group doesn't have problems or that advocates for the underprivileged group can't be prejudiced themselves. However, it does mean that the privileged group still isn't "oppressed".
As an example, let's say people with green shoes are an underrepresented minority and have a number of problems that people with red shoes don't have. That doesn't mean people with red shoes don't have problems. They just don't have the same problems and they're still better represented than the minority.
That assumes that eliminating the first problem makes the second problem impossible to fix.
For example, let's say asian men people say they're underrepresented in Hollywood. Black men counter this by saying that they're just as underrepresented. Hollywood decides that starting next year, they're going to have more movies starting asian heroes, but (for whatever reason) not black heroes. This does not solve both problems and, in fact, makes black men more marginalized than ever. However, it does NOT mean that they can't then try the same thing with black men next year or even a few years down the road.
Solving the first problem temporarily made the situation worse for one group and better for the other, but it didn't make one problem impossible to fix.

Karalora, this thread exists to discuss sexism and men's issues. To say "it exists because of me" is true but come on, you know that's not what I meant.
Zeal, women's rights aren't just something to be blindly obeyed, they're open to critique like everything else in life. Take Farrell's "Why Men Earn More". That's a book that states the wage gap exists because of factors other than sexism. To debate the idea that women are paid less simply because they're women isn't stonewalling women's rights. It's debating questionable points so people can assess the situation fairly and come to a fair conclusion. To say "they're just stonewalling women's rights" only makes sense if you believe that everything feminists say is fact. That's just not the case.
Well, I'd certainly like to know if you read the article rather than just the title. AVFM welcomes gay men, bans people for homophobia and has a section in their forum for men in gay relationships (as well as men in straight relationships, men who choose to stay single, etc). AVFM posted an article recently that publicly criticised and decried a men's rights blogger that liked to use terms such as "fag supporter" (I think). The article you posted seemed more like a call for gay men to switch to the MRM to me.
Could say the same about you and the SPLC, in all honesty. I'm no fan of Elam's but all you've done is say that he shouldn't list the names of intolerant people on his website. Sorry but I'm having difficulty sympathising with the misandrists over the guy wanting to publicise them.
Criticise him for his confrontational attitude or the fact that his articles on AVFM are all opinion pieces rather than drawing on facts and statistics. That'd be a more sound basis for disliking him. Because the SPLC did exactly what you're criticising Elam and Register-Her for by printing Roosh V's site as one of their misogynist "hate sites".