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
"The principle?" What principle? You're either wrong or you're not.
And that's loaded language. No one said anything about "treating X group as bad". They said that teaching the group not to do "bad" things can be helpful, and I gave a clear example where it's true.
edited 26th Dec '13 6:28:39 AM by KingZeal
Ok, so if someone is not behaving wrongly they should not be treated as if they are. All I think we are saying is that this should apply in this area as well. It's been pointed out several times that men are constantly lumped as this homogeneous group that acts and thinks as one. They are not, and should not be treated as such.
How does bringing a message to people mean they're all wrong? Is it wrong to teach sex education or traffic rules in school if 90% of the class already know the stuff. Of course not, because it's about telling everyone about it. To make sure everyone gets it you need to address everyone. Just because there are people who fly a lot does not mean they stop telling you what to do in an emergency.
Antiteilchen, your answer to me contains a large number of assumptions and distortions of what I said. I never said that it's sexism that causes the fact that 93% of workplace related deaths are male. I did mention gender roles, which are not the same.
I'll give you a complete answer when I get back to my computer.
"You cannot judge a system if your judgement is determined by the system."It does not, I agree with you in general. However, We don't just train males in how to drive cars. We teach men and women. The same way with sex education and 'rape wrongness' education, we treat them the same. We should not have a situation where if you flip the gender of the perpetrator the wrongness goes away.
I agree in principle, but the problem is that there are a long list of conflicting messages that teach men the opposite of this. The reason men are being singled out here is because they're singled out already; for example, the whole "Boys will be boys" mentality (or, as a Japanese mayor once said, "Rape isn't very gentlemanly, but it's not so bad if the woman has low moral standards").
Even if most men don't commit rape, there are still, unfortunately, a number of extremely unhelpful views about rape and harassment which we are being taught. Acknowledging this is the first step toward fixing the problem.
That's impossible. Gender roles is synonymous with sexism.
edited 26th Dec '13 7:17:43 AM by KingZeal
Those views need to be dealt with evenly.
Sexism or gender discrimination is prejudice or discrimination based on a person's sex. =/= A gender role can be defined as a set of social and behavioral norms that are generally considered appropriate for either a man or a woman in a social or interpersonal relationship.
Ex. A spotter and a shooter in a sniper team have different roles. However, the difference in their roles does not diminish their importance to the sniper team.
edited 26th Dec '13 7:20:33 AM by Soban
The issues can't be dealt with "evenly" when it disproportionately affects one gender compared to another, based on all current evidence and statistical information.
Also, the fact that gender roles are constructed normative values for each gender by definition means that they are discriminatory. Your spotter and sniper argument doesn't work because those are jobs, which carry specific functions. If having a gender denotes a function, then it's discriminatory and thus sexist.
To me gender roles is the recognition that the sexes are indeed different. Just talking purely physically, there is a consistent 1.08 Stature ratio between men and women. The fact is men and women (very broadly) think about problems differently. These ways of thinking and physical differences lend themselves to being better or worse in different situations. For example, Someone who thinks about situations as a network of relationships is going to be better at seeing connections between two seemingly unrelated things then someone who thinks about situations linearly. Conversely, Someone who thinks linearly is less likely to bring unnecessary assumptions that clutter up the issue into a situation.
Discrimination has two very specific senses. The first sense is "the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, esp. on the grounds of race, age, or sex." The second sense is "recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another." This is discrimination in the second sense, not the first.
Then you are using a Personal Dictionary for the term "gender role". A gender role is an artificial function placed on a gender; a gender role is not merely "genders are different"—that's sexual dimorphism—the very term gender role means you are telling someone their function and role simply because of the gender they carry.
edited 26th Dec '13 7:49:54 AM by DrStarky
Put me in motion, drink the potion, use the lotion, drain the ocean, cause commotion, fake devotion, entertain a notion, be Nova ScotianDiscrimination has two very specific senses. The first sense is "the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, esp. on the grounds of race, age, or sex." The second sense is "recognition and understanding of the difference between one thing and another." properly constructed gender roles is discrimination in the second sense, not the first.
Also, recognizing differences really doesn't work, because we live in a varied society. We don't see the need to "good" discriminate against any other type of difference, be it race, orientation, gender identity, or something else of that nature. What works for one person just doesn't work for another, and making blanket statements is not cutting it.
Read my stories!Good, Bad, Is. Differences exist. Recognizing the differences and expecting different roles based on them is appropriate. Because we live in a varied society, sense two discrimination is MORE important, not less. What works for one person just doesn't work for another. sense two discrimination is the recognition of that fact and treating them as such. Saying all X should do Y because they are X is an example of a lack of sense two discrimination and a example of sense one discrimination. They are not recognizing the differences between X1 and X2 and they are prejudging all X to do Y unjustly. However, The recognition that many X are happy/good at doing Y is not sense one discrimination but is sense two discrimination.
Again, you have it backwards. Gender roles is not merely acknowledging differences in genders—it is assuming differences in genders even if none exist. A gender role applies to every member of the gender, regardless of whether or not the difference exists. A woman who is every bit as capable as a man, or a man with the same talents as a woman, will be discriminated against because it doesn't fit their gender role. A gender role has a prescribed virtue of "appropriate" or "inappropriate" that fits a person of any gender, regardless of whether or not they are actually different.
Again, you are talking about dimorphism, which is often used as justification for a gender role but is not the same as a gender role.
edited 26th Dec '13 8:17:49 AM by KingZeal
Soban, think of it this way:
Recently, the USA decided to allow women to join the combat bits of its military. Some people were upset by this on the basis that they considered women too physically weak to fight. Others were upset by this because they felt women shouldn't fight, regardless of whether they were physically able or not.
The first is an argument based on human sexual dimorphism. The second is based on gender roles; Men Are the Expendable Gender, Stay in the Kitchen, women should be having babies, women are naturally gentler etc.
In this case neither argument is very strong. Whilst it is true that women are, in general, less physically strong than men, that does not mean all women should be excluded regardless of whether they can meet the standard or not. Gender roles themselves are oppressive to both genders. Why should your biological sex prohibit you from doing what you want to do?
Now, that isn't to say that we cannot have some discrimination based on sexual dimorphism; for example, as serving American soldiers on the military thread note, combat arms of the US military have an exacting physical standard, if it is the case that fewer women than men can meet that standard, then tough. The standard is in place for a very good reason. Similarly, it would be rather difficult for a man to be a wet-nurse, or to have a child, or to be a rape counselor for women. But, if we are to tolerate discrimination on the basis of sex, it has to be for a good, empirical, and relevant reason. Gender roles are not empirical, they are by and large cultural constructs.
Schild und Schwert der ParteiExactly, gender roles are simplifying assumptions. Simplifying assumptions are not by their nature sense one discriminatory. (They are not unjust) If X1, X2, and X3 have trait Z but X4 does not have trait Z and W1, W2, and W3 do not have trait Z but W4 does. Now, because of sense two discrimination I can make a simplifying assumption that most X's I meet will have trait Z and most A's will not. The problem of sense one discrimination is not when I'm dealing with X1, X2, or X3, who have trait Z or W1, W2, W3 who lack it, it is when I am dealing with X4 who does not have trait Z or W4 who has it. In that case, I must use sense two discrimination again to treat X4 different because X4 does not have trait Z. If I do not exhibit sense two discrimination I run afoul of potentially showing sense one discrimination.
edited 26th Dec '13 8:39:23 AM by Soban

It's not the specific what, it's the principle.
Edit: the question we are addressing is if "a relatively small part of group X is bad all members of group X should be treated as bad" is correct.
edited 26th Dec '13 6:24:21 AM by Soban