I don't understand this. In most stories, arn't protagonists primarily male? Arn't they typically courageous, or intelligent, or unyielding, or strong, or determined?
Look at some of the stories from the media. Some airlines will not allow males sit next to unaccompanied children. A theme park bans single males from bird watching, "in case they are predators". Female sexual assaults are disgusting while male sexual assaults are funny, to most people. If a little girl has a problem, it is immediately attended to, whereas if a little boy has a problem, he is told to "be a man and suck it up".
Feminism is cool whereas MRA is not. Oh, we also have some "interesting" people like this - http://www.vice.com/read/is-reducing-the-male-population-by-...
And so on.
I wish we look at problems without the gender/race/nationality etc lens and only purely based on their merit. This is 2015 and we still have gender stereotypes, whole lot of double standards (for both genders), laws favoring one gender or the other etc. All this noise is just tiring.
Because MRA has an absolutely horrific public image. If they concentrated on topics like visitation rights in divorce they'd be well appreciated - Fathers 4 Justice[1] is/was an organsiation that does exactly that and received positive coverage back in the mid-2000s (sadly, according to Wikipedia they've since gotten worse)
By contrast, almost every MRA conversation I've ever seen has been talking about how awful Feminists are. Using "Social justice warrior" to cover anyone who is passionate about helping women do anything (and why is it a negative label anyway?). About fake rape accusations as if they cast doubt over every legitimate accusation ever made. About how scantily clad women are 'asking for it'.
Is it really any wonder MRA isn't "cool"? (and let's be honest - Feminism isn't exactly universally cool anyway)
Didn't feminism have similar beginnings? It was a lot more angry, and it was justified. That anger often tipped over into unwarranted hatred and generalization, but that doesn't mean the anger was unjustified.
The Femitheist article was actually satire. Yeah, I also didn't quite get it either, though I was thinking that it must be satire, it was so over the top. Poe's law in action, I guess, and well-executed!
"I now no longer present my satirical works without making it clear that they are not serious, as many people have been unable to recognize that fact on their own, despite the over-the-top and theatrical style of said presentations."
There are some topics that are impossible to discuss even for 5 minutes, before it turns ugly with labels, name calling etc. Gender topics top that list (others include religion, political affiliation, eating meat etc). May be what you are saying is true, still it would be nice to refrain from name calling etc, right? Not that it bothers me personally, it just diverts the conversation from the actual issue. In the end, many people just keep quiet as they realize nothing they say is going to help.
We have managed to figure out how to land on the moon and yet we can't figure out how to weigh certain issues on their merit, and merit only.
>> May be what you are saying is true, still it would be nice to refrain from name calling etc, right?
It's just language....
To put it another way - it's easy to see that a mens rights movement could exist that actually pushes for mens rights. All we seem to have now is a group of reactionaries that like to rant about the evils of women and feminism, and espouse some (IMHO) horrific views about women and their place in the world. They also see mens rights as a fight against feminism in a sort of tug-of-war where no fight needs to exists - gender roles and inequalities could be fought together.
I think calling them misogynist dickholes just about covered it though, because that is the way they generally come across.
I have no problem with the "actual issue" of discussing ways in which men are treated unfairly by society. I have a huge problem with the people who have taken it upon themselves to stand up and be called "mens rights activists" and then proceed to rail against women's rights and women's rights activists as if they are the enemy.
But part of the problem is that nobody would address radical feminists as "misandrist cuntholes", right? Doing so would automatically disqualify your credibility. But for men, it's fine, they are really dickholes, right?
Most people will have to look up "the opposite of misogyny" to find "misandry", and that's telling in itself. I do understand why this happens (misogyny has always been a culturally-recognized problem with real repercussions, the opposite not so much), but it still happens and it does unbalance the cultural perception of things.
Of course, I was just taking HN as a random sample, to show that even in our highly-educated, male-dominated geek community, people are quite familiar with one term but not the other. This is significant and relevant to the argument, imho.
>> I'm pretty sure that this statement makes you a misandrist.
You'd be wrong then.
Misandry would be the hating or disparaging of men as a group, not the hating or disparaging of the MRA movement as it exists right now.
As a man, I do not identify with MRA and neither am I offended if someone criticises them, it is not misandry to do so. As I said - I can see that there could be a mens rights movement that addressed mens issues without resorting to being misogynist and anti-feminist. I do not think this exists in the MRA sphere at present. I do not think feminism (in its more mainstream forms) is the enemy, either, in fact it should be a natural ally.
I'll concede that a lot of outspoken feminists often try to intentionally confuse this issue as well, painting anyone who disagrees with any facet of feminism, no matter how extreme, as being misogynist.
And you are conflating anti-feminism with misogyny. It's very hard not to be anti-feminist when NOW is sabotaging shared parenting[1]. Feminism can't be natural ally of mens' rights because it is actively pushing against it. And please don't say that it is the issue with fringe feminists. NOW is not fringe, its as mainstream as it gets.
Have you heard what feminists say about legal parental surrender, military draft, circumcision, false accusations etc? Dodging the issue, invoking "it's patriarchy", FGM straw man and so on. With variations of "XYZ can't be fixed because its biology" or "add more feminism".
You are right on one thing. Traditionalist women are actually much worse than feminists when it comes to MR. Unfortunately feminists cater to this particular "electorate" and because of that feminists are not allies of MRM (outside of /r/FeMRADebates).
>> And you are conflating anti-feminism with misogyny.
No, I'm not, in fact I'm explicitly and deliberately not doing that, as I said here -
"I'll concede that a lot of outspoken feminists often try to intentionally confuse this issue as well, painting anyone who disagrees with any facet of feminism, no matter how extreme, as being misogynist."
>> Feminism can't be natural ally of mens' rights because it is actively pushing against it.
I disagree.
--edit--
In fact I disagree entirely, there's no reason at all that a mens rights movement could not exist to push the issues you call out, and work alongside a feminist movement working on feminist issues. Women campaigning for greater access to the workplace, and against street harassment, are not in opposition to men wanting greater access to their children. This is what I mean by natural allies.
The idea that they are necessarily in opposition is childish.
They are not in opposition when it comes to idea and desired end goal. They are pretty much in opposition when it comes to political means of reaching that goal. You can't have social change without support of large part of population. MRM caters mostly to men, Feminism caters mostly to women.
> Women campaigning for greater access to the workplace, and against street harassment, are not in opposition to men wanting greater access to their children. This is what I mean by natural allies.
In theory. But in practice they are. Please read the link I provided.
I really hope that you are right and both movements can actually come and act together. Equal Rights Amendment was a beautiful thing, shame it died.
As for now we have rape-on-campus (not supported by statistical data) moral panic instead.
Going off of that Vice article, sometimes I think that a 40/60 ratio of men to women would be favorable... it'd probably reflect the proportions of our hunter gatherer ancestry, and a lot of psychological benefits would come with that I'd imagine.
But everything else she said was extremely misandrist and sexist.
You can actually see the difference in gender relations in places with different gender ratios, and by age, as well.
"Single men become a rare commodity later in life due to our unfortunate propensity for dying. If you can get to 50 the world seems to be nothing but women."
"sometimes I think that a 40/60 ratio of men to women would be favorable..."
Without wanting to turn this into a race thing, there are sociological circumstances which sort of give us a glimpse (in subsets of the population) of what that could look like - and it's not pretty... See e.g. http://www.economist.com/node/21532296, which is one of the lesser emotionally charged discussions of it, but I'm sure you can find the right Google terms to find dozens of other articles about it yourself.
heh. Is there any part of that that's concretely not true? Humans all over the world have come up with it independently -- I dunno, unless Muslims and Mormons shared notes.
I could even go further and claim it to be an almost pan-mammalian truth.
Men and women are different. Especially when it comes to sex.
No, they're not that different, no you don't need more sex than one woman can give you to remain mentally healthy, as evidenced by all the not-crazy monogamists. You're an idiot.
If you want more than one partner, go for it, become a polyamorist. Lots of men and women do.
But your generalisations and your attitude towards women are childish, you need to grow up.
Look at the testimony of transgender people who go on hormones, especially female-to-male people. There's so much anecdotal evidence suggesting that the male libido is out of control compared to the female one.
> If you want more than one partner, go for it, become a polyamorist. Lots of men and women do.
I think what he's referring to is competition. Since there are more women than men it's more likely for a man to find a mate as compared to a society where there are an equal amount of men and women (since it's more likely that a women he would be interested in is taken). Women end up getting the shit end of the stick, though.
> But your generalisations and your attitude towards women are childish, you need to grow up.
I may have been exaggerating when I said mental health+, but it's still a fact that men still aren't getting laid as much as they would ideally like to=.
I mean, how would you even know? Because they aren't begging for it constantly? Really, I can tell you that that's more due to being polite and knowing in advance that the answer will be no.
+ I term I use in a much broader sense internally, since I don't know any better for word it. So I might let it out without checking if other people will understand what I'm saying.
= Not that they're entitled to it or anything, but then that never was my point.
What you're doing is generalizing people based on their gender; which is, by definition, sexist.
I'm not trying to harp on you - I have also been guilty of this not too long ago. Your experience does not represent that of all men, and your mental model of what a woman is does not represent all women. You are literally generalizing two groups consisting of 3.5 billion people, the vast majority of which you will never even see in your entire life.
> but it's still a fact that men still aren't getting laid as much as they would ideally like to
I'm pretty sure you're internally replacing "men" with "me" here.
> I mean, how would you even know? Because they aren't begging for it constantly? Really, I can tell you that that's more due to being polite and knowing in advance that the answer will be no.
If you don't think that the woman you are with has a high enough sex drive for you then you should probably discuss it with her or find someone more compatible with your needs.
If you can't be satisfied with sex with only one woman the you are free to lead a polyamorist lifestyle if you wish.
It's the generalisations across entire genders and the implied sexism that come across as childish. Not to mention your bizarre and horrific attitudes to rape. Do what you like, but women are people with varying tastes and drives just as much as men are. Maybe if you got to know a few you might find this out.
... I'd roll my eyes, but I'm not American enough. What's being discussed is barely even rape at all, except in some broad, all-encompassing dictionary-style definition of the word. Something falling under the broadest possible definition of the word rape doesn't automatically mean that it's rape in the sense of a male assaulting and raping someone.
> women are people with varying tastes and drives just as much as men are.
Yes, and there's barely a person alive that doesn't know this; see point #1.
I was talking about the attitudes to rape you displayed in the other thread further down the page, some of which have now been deleted they were so bad.
It's awful, you have a terrible attitude and a real lack of empathy.
I mean this - "Having sex with someone without their consent is rape, but that doesn't automatically mean it's a bad thing." - what the fuck? You clearly have no idea and I hope you're just young and stupid.
I can't remember everything I've written, but I don't see that anything's been deleted.
I'm sorry if I can't accept it as an axiom that all rape is equally bad...
Are you. seriously. saying. that just because something falls under the broadest and most pedantic definition of rape, that that means it must automatically be violent, bloody, sadistic?
If you fuck someone awake in the morning, that fits that very same definition of rape, therefore it _is_ rape, but it's obviously not a bad thing.
If one such counterexample exists I don't see why a few more shouldn't.
Are you even AWARE that I'm talking about the WOMAN initiating here?
and the reason I'm saying that is that the main argument against me on that subject seems to be: "rape is very bad because rape is very bad".
also: the posts were shadow-deleted. also: I can't even comprehend how sensitive people are that they feel the need to delete that. it isn't even hate speech or anything, not that speech in itself is a bad thing or that people can't just ignore it when they see it.
the only thing I can see accomplished by such deletion would be people assuming the absolute worst, on the basis of information they don't have access to.
In older stories, sure. But the "action hero" died a while ago. Have you not noticed the rise of the weak male lead in movies/TV/commercials? It's hugely prevalent in romantic comedies, but even TV shows like Modern Family (bumbling Phil and razor-sharp Claire) depict archetypes that are becoming quite common.
The formula is a charming yet incompetent male lead who's mainly driven by sex, paired with a strong, capable female lead who's always two steps ahead of him.
If I had children, I certainly wouldn't want them watching TV/movies that depict their gender as incapable or unintelligent. And that's equally true for girls and boys.
I recall an article on exactly this suggesting that this is the only stereotype that TV can screen now which won't offend.
For example, switch around the person who embodies the bumbling figure and in most cases it would be frowned upon or not effective.
It's possibly a power thing. Maybe it's ok and fun (not right) to poke fun at those perceived with the most social power. In most other situations, it's like kicking someone when they're down. I didn't say I agreed with this, just that it might explain why it is more "acceptable" at the moment.
Above everything though, I do find this set up incredibly boring. It was funny the first couple of times but it's been done ad nauseum now. Ad agencies and comedy writers, please up your game.
As a 30-something guy the main issue I had with Avengers 2 (just to pick the latest mainstream action movie example) was the blatant product placement which had no logic (like driving an Audi convertible in the midst of a gunfight scene). Plus, there was too much talking, I almost felt asleep mid-way through the movie. I'm not a comic-books aficionado, so I didn't particularly care about any of the characters, I just wanted some good action.
Compare that with "Predator" or the "Rocky" or "Rambo" series. Lots of good action, lots of "this is damn cool!" feeling without much thinking or non-sense talking. And "Last Action Hero", the movie, was indeed genius, like its director, John McTiernan.
You're just going to the wrong movies. There are action-no-talking films. Basically anything made by Michael Bay, for example. John Wick or The Raid 2 if you're not into CGI action. Anything made by Stallone in the last decade. There are plenty of Asian imports as well.
The other great product placement scene was when Bruce Banner was listening to classical music on his Beats headphones.
Beats headphones are overpriced, over-bassed crap with a gross form factor and uncomfortable cups to boot. This is said by anyone with any kind of taste for finer audio.
That's quite the false dichotomy. Why would the opposite of "bumbling moron father" be "action hero", rather than "competent father"?
The John McClanes of this world, if in fact they exist at all, are exceptionally few and far between. Good competent fathers though? Those are hardly Hollywood inventions.
It's a valid question, but most people I know (including my boys) identify far more with the guys on Big Bang Theory than Bruce Willis in Die Hard, and those guys are every negative archetype of maleness (sexist, unable to care for oneself, etc) wrapped up in a pseudo-intellectualized package. The one exception was Penny's boy friend, who filled "stupid jock".[1]
What Bruce Willis brings to the table is this idealized version of what "man" is supposed to mean. So, on the one hand, we have an image of men as socially retarded incompetents and on the other hand, we have an image of men as unkillable tough guys. Where is a 15 year old supposed to land in there?
1. I actually really enjoyed the first five or so seasons of BBT, before they started playing more and more to the cheap "socially retarded scientists" jokes. I also believe they aren't making lives better for intellectual young women, either, who need the role models more than anyone.
BBT has had nerdy women for a few seasons already. And most of the characters take care of themselves in their own apartment, and have highly respected careers. The nerdy women are actually a bit stronger than the nerdy men.
If I watch an action movie, I am not intimidated by or identify with the cool guy in the movie because I'm not the guy they're portraying. When sitcoms and commercials emasculate and defame the everyman, I know they're talking about me.
daaaaaamn man. You're telling me you don't identify Jerry Seinfeld, you identify with George Costanza?
Because when I've seen men get emascualated or mocked on TV, it's due to some jackassery on their part, and I don't feel the need to empathize. Isn't that true for you as well?
If there's an over-riding theme in media regarding men that I would report, it's that the consequences they experience are a result of their actions. I'd call that just as far from the truth, but an otherwise pleasant lie.
When I see the stereotypical sitcom dad, he keeps fucking up to telegraph to the audience that he's a fuckup, AKA Barney Fife, not to be a morality play "don't do this or this will happen." Barney can't not be a fuckup because that's his identity. Andy is a well-rounded character, he's not even perfect, sometimes he plays the fool and you learn the lesson, so it serves the morality play function. The dad on My Three Sons is near-perfect, he's the opposite of Barney Fife, his identity is that he's an inhuman archetypal father-figure. I Could see how this could be intimidating, but at least it's something to aspire to. From my perspective, the first two have mostly disappeared from television and most male characters that I would identify with are made to be Barney Fifes. There are also a lot of characters I don't identify with at all, I don't think anybody is supposed to identify with any character in Seinfeld, they are all supposed to be nigh-sociopathic. The audience is invited to laugh at all of them.
In Germany there was a funny incident recently: the Green political party decided to change all the wording in their publications to be gender neutral. In German often jobs have two names, somewhat like "captain" and "captainness" for male and female captains. And so on. They decided to change everything to "captain/ness".
The funny thing was that they properly gendered all positive personae appearing in their publications. But they forgot about the negative appearances.
So it would be "the captain/ness is steering the ship into the harbour" but "the captain is leaving the sinking ship".
So check your bias next time you read a story. It's telling that you don't even notice all the negative portrayals of men anymore.
> In most stories, arn't protagonists primarily male?
In most stories, the protagonist (male or female) is chosen because they're extraordinary. While I might identify a bit with Harry Potter or Luke Skywalker, they're certainly not going to be people I think of when I try to think of who I am because they're so fantastically extraordinary.
On the other hand, Bart Simpson or Fresh Prince Will Smith? Or, considering the age I'm approaching, Al Bundy? I can identify with them a lot more, even with the negative traits.
The other issue is:
> Arn't they typically courageous, or intelligent, or unyielding, or strong, or determined?
Why do you have to be courageous, intelligent, unyielding, strong, or determined? Why are all of those the absolute "good" traits?
If you're not a super strategist, are you a bad person? What if you avoid conflict? Afraid of dogs? etc.
The "standard" of extraordinary manhood is incredibly high if you look at stories like that.
Like a lot of people have said, modern shows are very much into the everyman male lead. Bryan Cranston's character in Malcolm in the Middle, Ed O'Neill's Al Bundy, Tim Taylor playing, once again, the affable rough-though-bumbling dad.
The thing is these are all prime-time sitcoms and comedies.
There's just as many popular shows where this isn't the case. Dramas rarely have this sort of soft, incorrigible-but-loveable archetype.
I'm not super-current on my media, but Game of Thrones, Boardwalk Empire, Walking Dead, Mad Men... most everything on HBO, Showtime, AMC, and FX run with strong, deep, emotionally complex male characters who grow and discover themselves, alongside the female characters.
And the male characters in these dramas are, on the whole, much more identifiable and aspirational.
> Game of Thrones, Boardwalk Empire, Walking Dead, Mad Men
Those characters are aspirational? They're almost all murderers, thieves, adulterers, or worse. I wouldn't want my son to be anything like any of those characters.
Part of the problem with the antihero-as-role-model is that it also conveys that being interesting is important. And to be interesting, it's good (or at least OK) for a man to have significant character flaws. So many soon-to-be-men think having your crap together is boring and thus unattractive. And many women think falling for a flawed man and fixing him is a romantic notion.
Yeah, aspirational was probably the wrong statement there.
Your son probably shouldn't be like any character on television, whether that's the antihero or bumbling means-well-but-worth-nothing comedy father. But
Interesting doesn't require character flaws. Those exist in characters in stories to provide space for developmental arcs -- space for us to see them grow and change, something we all want to do. They exist to make a point out of a story.
And these folks are so identifiable because we all sometimes feel like a not-put-together person. Heck, look how popular Breaking Bad, or House, M.D. were -- Laurie and Cranston were insanely popular in those roles because in their ridiculousness they reflected traits many people understand. Though I doubt their performances encouraged any meaningful percentage of the nation's fathers to start cooking meth, or medical professionals to treat people for lupus.
The story for a lot of these characters is that you can look like you have your shit together and still have space to learn, grow, evolve. Sure, it's in the context of murders and whatever because there's more drama there than "guy that goes to the office and has an ongoing feud with his HOA". But that doesn't invalidate the story, or directly encourage the audience to adopt the superficial story components.
>I don't understand this. In most stories, arn't protagonists primarily male? Arn't they typically courageous, or intelligent, or unyielding, or strong, or determined?
That is a common motif. Is it easy being expected to be unyielding/strong/determined/etc? You have lower social value when you aren't adhering to this role. When you are adhering to this role you are making yourself disposable to a "higher cause". In other words making yourself cannon fodder or getting black lung in some coal mine.
I don't understand.