|
Probably not. What actually does trivialize male domestic violence is male attitudes towards it. The 'toxic masculinity' that people talk about is specifically engineered to achieve that goal. The rhetoric that cackles with glee whenever prison rape is joked about, that views physically weak men as lesser, that views the male victim of violence as being pathetic for not being able to stand up for themselves? That's not a female creation. It's also responsible for the culture of shame and silence that comes with being a 'battered man'
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2016 22:35
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 12:24 |
|
|
Radical feminist rhetoric has actually softened from the days of the SCUM Manifesto. These days men aren't actually considered genetically inferior, a defective chromosome on two legs etc. but it's still too much for the delicate sensibilities of most men who regard any whiff of reduced status to be the coming of the end times. I'd really, really like to see someone come up with a modern day equivalent of the SCUM Manifesto just to see the outrage and shock it would cause.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 14, 2016 23:35
|
|
|
GhostofJohnMuir posted:I don't really have a formal education on feminist issues or the history of feminist theory and philosphy, but was the SCUM Manifesto really an entirely honest statement of opinion? My sense was that it used extremely shocking statements in an attempt to cause introspection in the reader and get them to acknowledge and critically examine their subconscious world view. I think in any kind of manifesto of that nature it can be difficult to distinguish between trying to build the self esteem and self awareness of a minority class and actual full on dehumanization of the majority class. Either way the language and imagery in a manifesto are kind of in a whole different category than day to day language that you might see on a blog post which the OP is addressing. No, the SCUM manifesto was a parody. Valerie Solanas had problems, but she was actually quite a clever and funny writer. The entire thing was pretty much a reversal of the standard Freudian analysis of how ultimately everything is about the penis. She even links the male need to feel superior and denigrate women to be "pussy envy" and how men ultimately wish they were women, who are genetically superior, as the Y chromosome is a half-formed X chromosome (so she even parodies the standard 'biotruth' defence about why women are ultimately inferior for reasons) It is intended to be shocking and inflammatory, but that's what good satire strives to be. There were of course, and still are, many people who believe that it is a genuine genocidal text against men (one amazon review calls it the 'Mein Kampf of feminism') but I suspect those are the same people who are shocked at Jonathan Swift's earnest proposal that we sell babies to the rich to be food.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2016 00:07
|
|
|
Sethex posted:An if it is out of humour well than i guess i didn't see it as a joke prior to now, that said the rationale sounds abit storm fronty. You're right, jokes about men are not funny, not like rape jokes, which are universally hilarious.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 15, 2016 11:02
|
|
|
menino posted: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. 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.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 02:55
|
|
|
menino posted: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. 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: quote:Vilification - Men are regularly vilified and demeaned, both in the media and by feminist and government groups. The primary example of this is the widespread belief that men are the only gender capable of committing domestic violence, which comes with the corollary belief that women who do commit domestic violence are simply defending or empowering themselves. For further reading on this subject, see these links: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. All of which are fair enough, I guess. Most seem to be focused on the way men are portrayed in media in general and judicial/government systems having a bias. For the first one, looking at the big four advertising companies out there (Publicis, IPG, Omnicom, WPP) a surprising amount of senior positions are held by men. Even finding out information on the board of directors for their various subsidiaries paints a similar picture. Hardly a feminist conspiracy. Same deal with the judicial system. In the UK, 75% of all judges are men. In the US 68% of district court judges are men. 65% of judges in the federal courts of appeal are men. Out of all of the supreme court appointees since time began, 94% have been men. It is currently 62% men (higher if you include the corpse, which I didn't). Governments don't fare much better: 80% of Congress are men. 71% of the House of Commons are men. 74% of the House of Lords are men. Statistically speaking, any time men are being hosed over in the realm of advertising, law or government policy it's more than likely a preponderance of men are the ones responsible for it, unless the small amount of women present in these fields have an inordinate amount of influence. I'm not going to go through the statistics for law enforcement, academia and medicine, but I'm guessing, at a stretch, the trend of it being predominantly men and not women is going to hold true. The last of your original point is confusing. "There is zero sympathy for what men go through in public discourse." Public discourse about what?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 03:48
|
|
|
But your original point was about how those 'angry disguised as feminist' websites are not reporting this stuff. Why is that more of a problem than the vast majority of media the vast majority of people actually consume not doing the same? I mean, that's not even focusing on the small percentage of the mainstream media that is created by females, that's focusing on the female specific part of an already specific niche, i.e. almost completely negligible.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 04:09
|
|
|
I was curious about the impact of Gawker and how many people actually visit the site. According to Quantcast Gawker had 538.2 million visits in a 365 day period. That averages out to about 1.4 million visits a day (not unique visits, just visits) By comparison, Super Bowl 50 had 111.9 million views. More people probably saw that Lynx ad than Gawker. The last episode of Seinfeld had about 76 million. America's Funniest Home Videos averages about 5.2 mil for season 26. More people tune in to see people get hit in the balls than Gawker. I'd imagine the former has a larger negative impact on the cultural perceptions of men and their tolerance for having nasty poo poo happening to them.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 04:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 12:24 |
|
|
EasternBronze posted:I don't see how getting killed because you are a male and hence considered an "enemy combatant" is not gendered. Funnily enough not even men get the worst deal out of war https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wartime_sexual_violence
|
|
#
¿
Mar 8, 2016 06:02
|
|