|
Patriarchy is harmful to both men and women, and of course especially to women. But that still means that tens of millions of men are harmed by it. That's something you don't see on Jezebel or Wonkette or any of the surface level 'anger disguised as feminism' sites that get the most eyeballs. There is zero sympathy for what men go through in public discourse.
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 02:31
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 17:01 |
|
|
Ddraig posted:I agree, it's terrible what men put other men through. If only men could stop doing that, that would be a real great benefit for men, but unfortunately men are too focused on solving the problem with women and how they're too uppity these days. That's juvenile and incredibly over-reductive. The idea that men cause problems and women have problems is one of the oldest, most gendered assumptions out there. Women also contribute to this, espeically in romantic relationships. Men often show vulnerability to each other with no negative effects, but report getting this most harshly from women. Brene Brown writes on this in depth in her research. This is not to say that on balance what men to do women is not as bad, only that we're ignoring a huge part and this refusal to have a realistic dialogue is what drives men (in part) to the wacko parts of the MRA internet.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 03:11
|
|
|
Basically let's just say that 60% of what goes down in between the sexes is 'worse' by men. I can definitely say that's a likely state of affairs, even though reports on domestic abuse actually show that women initiate intimate partner violence more often then men. BUT the severity outweighs the frequency (ie women dont' kill their partners despite engaging in more low level abuse) That leaves 40% unacknowledged. Just saying 'hey men we ladies get that this is not really fair when it comes to a lot of things in your home lives and we should take responsibility for *some* of this' would probably take the edge off, even though there's going to be angry low status males no matter what. And I have heard this from women, but mostly from academics--my org psych professors were very open about this topic and I get the feeling that actual academy-level gender theory is all over this and has been for literal decades. But in terms of mainstream gender sites, which is what most men interact with and which most tends to influence mainstream discourse, it's just mockery or lifestyle feminism which selectively quotes housework numbers pulled out of context. Which is horseshit. There's big industries in media for angry men and angry women but only the angry women are in the mainstream, which I think reflects mostly on the lives of women working in the publishing industry in Manhattan. Actual women in academia who train in this have a much better picture of it but they're not listened to.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 03:21
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:it's really rampant misandry, the way that women's media never talks about men's issues. why jezebel should talk about female-on-male domestic violence as often as playboy or ESPN does. and when is men's history month??? You can't read and your dogshit posting is case in point. I didn't say it's rampant, only that it goes unacknowledged. Is it really a stretch to say that men and women are internalizing the same norms? Is that not something discussed at length in gender studies when discussing how women act? Ddraig posted:From what I can gather on my perusal of various "men's rights" websites (mainly Reddit's mensrights subreddit), from their FAQ the main concerns are: About gender issues. It's almost exclusively focused on what men are doing to women. And re your point about advertisers, I agree. I don't doubt that men are the ones in power but again, all of society has internalized these norms. e: Also, what I was citing was issues at home--women have internalized the idea that men cannot be vulnerable and treat men worse because of it. Brown does not have data but she says she read it again and again. I agree with most of that reddit stuff but again it veers into MRA territory with the false rape stuff. I'm sure that happens and it needs to get fixed but on balance the issue is clearly men raping women rather than women falsely accusing men. The key is to focus on the structural issues at play--which again means that women are bearing the worst of it. But there are still tens of millions of men who have terrible lives and their lives are terrible in a specific gendered way, which you simply can't say about white people or rich people--ie their lives are bad in a way that reflects their whiteness or wealth. To ignore these issue like our buddy PTD is doing with some Z-level snark and shitposting is part (PART but not all) of what drives low status males to MRA weird poo poo. If there was an actual discourse from men AND women about how men also suffer from gendered expectations, there would not be that sense of unfairness and marginalization with huge percentages of men in this country. menino fucked around with this message at 04:02 on Mar 4, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 03:59
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:But your original point was about how those 'angry disguised as feminist' websites are not reporting this stuff. ESPN is not focused on the idea that men and women should be equal. It's focused on entertainment. When what you see as feminism is just topics that make educated women in Manhattan angry, or signalling from Everydayfeminism on how to appear like a more enlightened liberal (EDUCATE YOURSELF!) it leaves you with the impression that feminism is a crock that is confusing egoism with a concern for egalitarian principles. See: most Hillary pieces by Amanda Marcotte, Sady Doyle, and Jessica Valenti. Which is unfortunate because that certainly is not what it is.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 04:16
|
|
|
E^ I agree with that, I don't see why the two are mutually exclusive. Who What Now posted:No it doesn't. The only people that get that impression already had it in the first place, without fail. They wanted to see it and Lo and behold they did. No they don't, with fail. I think that feminism is needed and that gendered arguments about how women are treated in our society are necessary. But these particular women writers are all about lifestyle. They see a lovely system and think that the only problem is that women aren't running it. There is a strain of feminism that has been recognized as a useful tool for capitalism and that is what were are seeing in mainstream media. And thankfully it is constantly being called out by radical feminists, almost all of whom I agree with--LIza Featherstone, Rania Khalek, Amber Frost, Yasmin Nair to name a few. menino fucked around with this message at 04:58 on Mar 4, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 04:51
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:this is a really convincing and well sourced argument that in no way reflects some weird hangup about women who have opinions that you dont like Again you're projecting. I think Maxim is far worse than Jezebel. If push came to shove I'd go with Jezebel over any of those lad magazines. So quick to jump in with some dogshit false equivalence psychoanalysis, it's like you just have a quiver of crappy arguments to just throw out and fail to read. God forbid I disagree with woman's opinion, I must be basing that on the time I didn't get laid for 8 months when I was 23! menino fucked around with this message at 05:33 on Mar 4, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 05:31
|
|
|
Extremely upset? Already going to 'you mad' huh? When have I claimed men's media is better? You are clearly prosecuting previous arguments because this is just knee jerk
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 05:41
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:hey OP misandry is v. triggering to me pls lock the thread Maxim, Askmen, SI half of Esquire. They're garbage and portray women poorly
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 05:51
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:really i'm just making fun of you for confusing blogs that say things you don't like with feminism, and then getting mad at feminism for not talking about issues that matter to you, which is clearly evidenced by the absence of material acceptable to you on blogs for which you are not the target audience I'm not indicting feminism as a whole. I cited specific sites and writers. Again-- you're not reading only commenting. Interchangeable sick burns that are tangential to what I'm saying menino fucked around with this message at 06:05 on Mar 4, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 05:54
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:No, you're not. You're creating gotcha scenarios and using them to uphold your own personal narrative. Jezebel is a woman's lifestyle blog. It primarily deals with female lifestyle and its readership (mostly composed of women) go there for woman-related news. Why would they focus on male issues? That's not what their audience is there for. Using such focused news sources to support your views is disingenuous as hell. I'm not expecting them to cover men's issues. I'm expecting less contempt and derision. E: Same from NYMag, Slate, Guardian. Now you can play no true Scotsman with these sources and say that they are not actually feminist and in some ways I would absolutely agree. But for better or for worse these are actually very popular feminist branded portals with certain classes menino fucked around with this message at 06:15 on Mar 4, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 06:12
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:are you sure this is actual contempt and derision and not just some personal sensitivity on your part, because i'm not seeing it despite you constantly asserting that it is so Are you sure that you haven't substituted "hey think you have some issues buddy *smrik*" for an argument because it seems like that is all you are capable of posting.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 06:20
|
|
|
rudatron posted:The browser doesn't know the difference, all it does is download a list of sites from google that are flagged as malicious. You can report sites to Google, but I don't think they'd just ever take your word for it, so it's more likely to be actually bad. Google doesn't seem to be transparent over if they actually have a review process or not, but I can't imagine they don't. I think that like everything, feminism has been commoditized, and it's getting over saturated to the point where itfs just "Hey look at these men they're awful!" That tends to be what Reductress goes after, the portion of online feminism that is basically just branding. Here's Valenti's article, which boils down "yeah we say bad poo poo about men, but it's empowering because it's based on stereotypes. And men's concerns aren't worth listening to until we end rape and murder." http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/13/feminists-do-not-hate-men
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 15:44
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Why would any man be concerned with the writing of women having less contempt or derision for men? Do you fancy we have earned less, as a sex? You see fascism in literally everything, please go back to hoarding guns.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 18:09
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I hoard back issues of Ms. Magazine that treat me with contempt and derision, they're more dangerous than guns. It's a wonder I can even stay alive as men are, as we speak, being criticized. I agree. Taking issue with anything that isn't the literal worst state of human affairs possible is petulant, proto fascist and shows deep insecurities. Good opinions.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 18:27
|
|
|
wiregrind posted:Prankster misandry has no effect on those already comfortable with traditional masculinity. You don't see jocks or athletes complaining about ironic misandry. The ones who talk about it are outcasts, misfits, and men who were abused. Seems like an indictment of traditional masculinity no? Jocks AND athletes (not sure how that's different) don't really make sense as a category past about age 25 anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2016 15:30
|
|
|
Masculinity is basically a trap anyway, like most of the institutions in this country that have a winner take all structure. If you do win, if you do very well at it--in the major revenue generation sports for example, you are able to reap a huge amount of rewards for it but then end up in constant physical pain for the last 30-40 years of your life. Otherwise, you're basically screwed. You can reject the label and that works all well and good but you have to ensure that you are dealing with people who are similarly attuned to the idea that gender roles are a scam--otherwise you end up like OP (and myself, I got beat by a gf for a while)-- getting shouted down for pointing out that there are lots of situations in gender relations that don't conform and potentially getting ostracized in the short term. And god forbid you're a black or Latino guy in this country. Totally hosed. Everybody thinks you're a threat from the day you're about 11 or 12.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2016 16:17
|
|
|
Brene Brown cites in her book "Daring Greatly" actually that women often are characterized as being the most contemptuous of make vulnerability. But she didn't offer any data.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 6, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
I still don't get how acknowledging the downsides of patriarchy for men has to imply that women are not hugely adversely affected too.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
Popular Thug Drink posted:it's fine to complain about random people's internet opinions but it's pretty, weird, to build from that into rampant and violent misandry That's part of it, but not all of it. What is considered permissive in media is indicative of what is permissive elsewhere.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 7, 2016 22:25
|
|
|
I think the standard liberal thinking on gender is a lot more prone to flaws and exemptions than race or class. "White people have it better than black people" is with very few exceptions a pretty good way to look at how race works in the US, as is "Rich people have it better than poor people". These are clear cases of vertical inequity. The statement "men have it better than women" however has a lot of exceptions and is mostly a concern of horizontal inequity. Yes all things being equal a man of the same social standing has it better, but all things are not equal in many cases. The most powerful group in this country is white men, but white women are a close second. It is the ideology most prone to being co opted by capitalism. Still means that it's necessary and that women of all classes and races need specific relief in the form of changing norms and policies though.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2016 00:26
|
|
|
 LOL learn to take a joke neckbeards
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2016 02:52
|
|
|
PTD keeps making my point for me: "If it's not as bad for group X, we should not focus on their experience until group Y's ills are completely eradicated" Just an occasional acknowledgement of things would go a long way but it is almost burned into the liberal psyche not to cede on this. When you are constantly having your experiences negated, and the only people you hear talking about them are the online wingnuts of Gamergate, you end up with radicalization that wouldn't otherwise happen.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2016 13:39
|
|
|
Gravy Jones posted:Why do you keep slipping 'liberal' in there? Do you genuinely see this as a 'liberal' thing? It's not like people who aren't liberals are all about aknowledging and drawing attention to issues concerning male victims of domestic abuse (or victims of elderly abuse, or prisoner abuse or any other kind of abuse). To characterise this as some kind of liberal hivemind thing suggests that there is an alternative non-liberal group who are doing a better job of not trivialising or minimising the suffering of others. Is that the case? I'm sure there are individual groups of people advocating for these kind of things, but you're not going to be able to sell the idea that it's some kind of charecteristic of non-liberal thinking. I guess I am contrasting 'liberal' with 'left'. I have no expectations of decency from most of the right.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2016 14:38
|
|
|
Dreylad posted:Happy International Women's Day, everyone. 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2016 14:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 17:01 |
|
|
Non journalist power users on Twitter seems to be ppl with borderline/histrionic personality disorder too, both left and right. Lots of scam artists and 'activists' who are mostly concerned with branding and obscure in-group status plays.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2016 19:09
|
|