General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsMisogyny sucks...Misandry sucks...
When did the gender war begin here?
How about looking at men and women as three dimensional beings and not their shells?
Had to get that off my chest...
I feel better now!
rdharma
(6,057 posts)I'm very tired of that shit too!
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)I think we all need to be sensitive to objectifying people , especially given the fact that genetics plays a large part in how a person looks. That doesn't mean a person can't appreciate a beautiful woman or a handsome man.
shenmue
(38,501 posts)I like people. Is that too much?
BeyondGeography
(39,283 posts)More often than it should, actually.
BainsBane
(53,001 posts)Only recognizing glossy photoshopped magazine images rather than living, breathing three dimensional women.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)I don't think DU is infested with misogynists who can't see past women as sex objects.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)are you saying that there are absolutely NO misogynists on this site?
BainsBane
(53,001 posts)People here are not more evolved than the rest of humanity. You obviously haven't been reading many of these threads. No one who believes in human equality justifies sexism through appeals to pseudoscience.
I can only speak of my own experience. There is worse sexism here than I have ever encountered offline.
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)Unbelievable.
Literally.
BainsBane
(53,001 posts)Just like on DU only white people get to decide what racism is. What we actually experience of course doesn't matter.
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)Thinking you've divined a poster's gender from a two word response - simply because said poster questioned your bizarre statement - is pretty textbook.
I want to know more about me. Does my butt look pre-pubescent in these jeans?
BainsBane
(53,001 posts)Regardless, it is supremely arrogant to dismiss another's personal experience simply because you find it inconvenient. The internet is well known as hostile to women, as many have written about in numerous publications. Of course your comment above tells me you have no concept of what sexism actually is, which is doubtless a willful decision to refuse to understand.
I would be very surprised if I were wrong. You also assume this is the first post by you I've ever read, which is not the case.
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)"There is worse sexism here than I have ever encountered offline." It's reasonable to infer that "here" is DU, unless your writing is simply clumsy. Not my fault. Nonetheless, if "here" is the internet, then I'll defer to your experience.
You're the one who presumed to know my gender based upon two words or now, instead, other posts of mine. I encourage you to cite one.
In the meantime, what kind of vehicle do I drive? A pink Geo or a black F150?
BainsBane
(53,001 posts)Thought so. Yes, by here I meant DU. DU is on the internet, in case you hadn't noticed.
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)S.A.M
(162 posts)They make fun of men in order to sell products that was manufactured by men?
Is this corporate feminism?
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)kcr
(15,300 posts)Given how many people showed up in the ape thread to chime in with "But we ARE apes!" That was very disappointing. Apparently no problem with the sexism and degrading then.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)Could you please give me the cliff notes version of what happened?
Thank you in advance.
kcr
(15,300 posts)Lots of responses of But we are apes, flame war ensues between explanations of why it isn't cool to compare anyone to apes because it's degrading and accusations of ant-science flung at those making the objection by those who just couldn't see the objectification going on.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)But humans are more evolved than apes. They can perform tasks that apes cant'.
Distant Quasar
(142 posts)No life form is "more evolved" than any other. Chimps and gorillas can perform many tasks that you or I can't, because they're adapted a different set of environmental challenges. And the incorrect idea that humans are "more evolved" than every other species is part of what people are seeking to challenge when they say humans are - in terms of kinship - apes. (Maybe to the point of being a little dogmatic about what is really an issue of semantics.)
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)Can they, for example build machines like computers and connect them to a world wide web?
Of course, neither can I, but with proper training I could understand some of it.
Can apes (I mean, of course, NON-human apes) get together and design a machine and create a network of roads to travel across a continent?
Can they build jet airplanes, spaceships to take people to the moon or robots to Mars? Can they even understand what Mars is?
Can they make electric guitars and write songs that other apes will sing along to?
I would say that objectively, the human species pretty much qualitatively kicks any other species a$$. But probably I am just undervaluing the skill it takes for an ape to be out there cracking walnuts with a couple of rocks.
Marr
(20,317 posts)I expect you'd find the ability to digest cellulose quite a bit more useful than the ability to design an electric guitar.
Humans are pretty amazing creatures, but it's true that we're no more evolved than anything else. Just differently evolved.
Distant Quasar
(142 posts)Of course the humans are going to win. There's nothing "objective" about your assessment; all you are doing is listing achievements that inspire you with a subjective feeling of awe - and unsurprisingly, it turns out you're impressed precisely by the kinds of activities humans excel at. If I judged how "evolved" humans were by how capable they were of emulating the lifestyles of gorillas in their natural habitats, the gorillas would win, easily. Either way, it's an absurd exercise, not worth taking seriously.
In fact, what seem to you like signs of our evolutionary superiority could actually be just the opposite. Gorillas and chimpanzees have demonstrated the ability to thrive long-term without overwhelming the habitats on which they depend. Meanwhile, our amazing technical and intellectual abilities have brought us to the brink of destroying ourselves and much of the rest of life on earth. If long-term survival is the goal, homo sapiens may well turn out to be a massive evolutionary failure (although that too, by the way, would be a subjective judgment.)
If you want to beat your chest about how much more awesome humans are than other species, that's your right. But it's wrong to dress up your subjective judgments up in pseudoscientific terminology like "more evolved", when all you really mean is "we're better" - in your opinion.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)is the claim that using rocks to smash palm nuts is just as good as inventing the piano and writing music for it.
Also, I didn't say anything about "evolutionary". All I said was "superior" and "objectively superior".
It's true that if we do not agree on a measurement, then nothing can be measured. I certainly do not like the measurements of the "forward stampede" which would measure everything by per capita GDP. But there should be a standard that most reasonable people can agree on.
A standard that would say that microcomputers and piano concertos are superior to banging rocks to crack palm nuts.
Distant Quasar
(142 posts)Last edited Mon Feb 17, 2014, 03:50 PM - Edit history (13)
It's based on what you care about and what you think is important. That makes it inherently relative to your goals. If you and I agree on the goals, yes, we can hopefully come to a shared standard for making value distinctions in some non-arbitrary way - but that still won't be an "objective" standard in the sense of being universally true no matter what specific values we hold.
Aliens from a spacefaring civilization might not find our capabilities any more impressive than those of a chimp pounding a rock, because their perspective would be so removed from ours. You think your judgments about this issue are indisputable and obvious and that any other point of view is crazy only because you take your (human) perspective for granted.
I happen to enjoy music, and science, and other activities that humans excel at. This is inevitable - I'm a human being and I like the kind of things that members of my species tend to like. But I don't need to believe that these are objectively superior to the activities of chimpanzees in order to appreciate them. That's like saying human intelligence is "superior" to photosynthesis in plants, or that oxygen is "superior" to carbon; what is even the point of applying those kinds of judgments to the natural world? I'm not saying human intelligence isn't valuable; it's just that it's valuable only to us. (When you say "reasonable people" should be able to agree on a standard for making such judgments, note the key word there: people.)
Finally, I just want to note that my original comment was on the phrase "more evolved." You will never hear a contemporary biologist saying one kind of organism is "more evolved" than another, because that particular distinction is meaningless in light of evolutionary science; it belongs to an earlier era when people thought (wrongly) of evolution as some sort of ladder leading upward, from microorganisms to humans at the very top. So anyone who is using the word "evolved" in this way is using it incorrectly. I said nothing about superior or inferior. You are the one who dragged these concepts into the conversation.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Fish, cheetahs, and cats can. Evolution isn't a ladder, it's a tree. Different species evolve as a result of environmental pressures, and success is only measured in their ability to survive in their natural environment.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)and mate.
Of course I can do all three. Humans have invented a self contained underwater breathing apparatus, and that's not a SNAFU.
Even with a simple automobile I can go far faster than a mere 50 mph. To say nothing of a jet airplane or a rocket.
And I can see in the dark with my infrared night vision goggles.
Survival is not much of a measurement. For one thing, because nothing really does survive, except maybe atoms or neutrons.
For another thing, any animal with the ability to do so, wants more than just survival and procreation. They want a GOOD life.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Survival to the point that it passes on its genetic code. That is the entire point.
An organism ultimately strives to avoid pain and discomfort. That's a behavior that ultimately benefits its odds with procreation and survival. I imagine a species that favors pain and discomfort probably got wiped out by now.
Feral Child
(2,086 posts)You're assigning values very arbitrarily.
Bears, for example, wouldn't think your electric guitar or your songs very useful, but they can form a nice fecal-plug that prevents them from fouling their dens during a months-long hibernation.
Can you do that?
Evolution means developing a skill-set that ensures survival for a species and couldn't give a rat's-ass about distorting a string to cause a specific audio vibration.
Intelligence is over-rated as a survival system. True, we have out-survived many species (since we've caused their extinction) but it's very likely our "intelligence" is ensuring our own extinction as well.
Crocodiles have survived for millions of years, we've been around for a mere twitch of the evolutionary clock and may not hang on for much longer.-
Can I get a "Kumbaya" on that?
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)Last edited Tue Feb 18, 2014, 11:25 AM - Edit history (1)
"Bears, for example, wouldn't think your electric guitar or your songs very useful, but they can form a nice fecal plug that prevents them from fouling their dens during a months-long hibernation. "
Humans have created one too. It's called a butt plug. You can purchase one from a Doc Johnson catalog.
SARCASM
Feral Child
(2,086 posts)Got me, you did.
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)Ohio Joe
(21,656 posts)They do have their own Group here though and wander out from time to time to spread their MRA talking points.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)I suppose you are referring to the Men's Group (of which I am not a member or poster). Maybe you could have a word with Skinner about the existence of a misogynist group on a progressive web site. Or maybe your definition of misogynist is not the standard one.
And while I'm here, I gotta tell you I never heard of this "MRA" except on these gender wars thread here. I can't speak for other posters, but this whole "MRA talking points" thing seems like a canard. I'm sure such groups exist, but I don't spend my spare time scouring the dark corners of the interwebs looking for them. And the whole "talking points" thing is a bit of a diversion, isn't it? You can just say "talking points" and then you don't have to actually address whatever was said.
Ohio Joe
(21,656 posts)Just the other day I pointed out how we should not make excuses for a middle aged state trooper who raped a teenage girl by trying to turn it into something 'consensual'. Would you believe there are those who defend it? I know... It's shocking.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)You mean the post where I wondered why he hadn't been charged with statutory rape?
And drew a distinction between forcible rape and consensual--albeit, illegal--sex.
But I don't remember that part about "defending it." Maybe you could elaborate, or maybe you could quit pulling stuff out of your nether regions.
Ohio Joe
(21,656 posts)Consensual rape is so much better.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)I really don't understand the problem with acknowledging that there is a difference between sex you consent to even if it's illegal because of your age (statutory rape) and sex you are forced into (rape).
That said, the use of that distinction by right-wing zealots in their effort restrict abortion rights is reprehensible.
Ohio Joe
(21,656 posts)It was rape and there was nothing 'consensual' about it. You see... When people are generally considered 'under age' (and 15 certainly qualifies), they cannot give 'consent' for a good reason. That you choose to ignore that fact and somehow feel a 15 year old girl was instead capable of doing so with a middle aged state trooper.... Well, why is that?
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)This place feels like it's one step away from Reddit these days.
Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)If SmearStir works for one broad-brush, it just has to work for another; it's just one keystroke away.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)because there is absolutely misogyny here at DU.
11 Bravo
(23,922 posts)It seems counter-intuitive to assume that they were all dead, non-respiratory, and flat.
Or might it be even remotely possible that a group of intelligent, adult women (and I hope you can wrap your head around the fact that there are more than a few adult, intelligent women models) decided to pursue their career; and when the SI cover, by any measure one of the top modeling gigs on the planet, offered them a slot, they decided to accept a bunch of money to make a living in the manner they selected?
BainsBane
(53,001 posts)The point is not about them as people. It is that men who are fixated on those magazines do so precisely because they aren't interested in intelligent, three dimensional women. One insisted the fact he is an ape compelled him to look at magazine images of women's behinds--because evidently he thinks biology has evolved human beings toward avoiding procreation by focusing on magazines and porn rather than actually reproducing the species.
The images on magazines are not of real women. They are not even real images of those models. They are altered to appear the way that men who have internalized capitalist commodity fetishism believe women should look.
Ultimately one of the main ringleaders made clear why they made sure that OP was posted. The purpose was to "retaliation," he insisted. It was a deliberately hostile action to offend women on this site, just as courts have ruled posting such images in workplaces is part of a hostile work environment intended to demean women and claim the workspace as male. That their intent was hostile was obvious, which is why I stayed out of their shit fest.
11 Bravo
(23,922 posts)I would think that any individual who had been selected as a symbol of someone else's crusade would, at a bare minimum, prefer to be considered a person.
And do you have access to some super-secret SI photo lab information? ALL model shots are touched up. Some people might even consider calling them "photo shopped", with all of the connotations attached thereto, to be demeaning.
But that's OK, because it's all for a good cause, right?
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)of three males in that position, clustered together, butts out, smiling coyly over their shoulders?
This is supposed to be a progressive website, and equality of the sexes is a progressive value. So why the effort to make women look ridiculous?
And again, if you don't think they look ridiculous, then please imagine three men in that pose.
Feral Child
(2,086 posts)It's a reality.
If we were intelligent avians instead of apes, you'd be wailing because everyone was oggling the gaudy plumage of the males and ignoring the poor, dowdy girly-birds.
I'm not saying that woman don't deserve equal pay, equal rights, or the protection of society from the more depraved members of our species. We are capable of overcoming our biological evolution to that extent, and societal evolution has its own rewards.
But worrying about the fact that men like to look at tits is rejecting the infant along with the effluvia.
As to concerns that the current standard (one that has existed for a tiny slice of our cultural continuum) of beauty is a waifish, nubile female form, yes, it has caused damage to some adolescents trying to attain status within that cultural standard, but please realize that the most common beauty standard throughout civilization has been "Grecian", ie, over-fed women with an excess of avoirdupois.
You'll reject these arguments because you're fixated. It's an unfortunate fact that most of our decisions are governed by emotion rather than logic. We're flawed as a species in that regard.
Try to overcome your own prejudice and emotional need. You'll do your cause more good if you become more logical and less reactionary.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)i say in all ogical and lacking in emotion.
what a fuckin hoot of insults. wow.
wow wow
hm.
k, well why dont you just ignore all of womens argument to align your discussion in your logically insulting manner. there is really no need to challenge a single bit. i would not even bother, in the mass of discussion filtered with insults.
cheers.
bad woman baines... quit being so... oh, woman like.
Feral Child
(2,086 posts)You are incoherent in a way that a remedial writing class can not address. Beyond ignorance to the point your babble is clearly psychological in nature.
Parse a goddamn sentence.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)Feral Child
(2,086 posts)Ignore.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Jury let it stand. Seems you are well versed in who you can attack here.
redqueen
(115,096 posts)Feral Child
(2,086 posts)Ignore.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Feral Child
(2,086 posts)Ignored.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)New approach at ignoring people. Very interesting. Anyway, soon you won't have any other options but to read from afar. Don't think it will be your first time enjoying peperoni. Ignoring me yet?
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)BainsBane
(53,001 posts)Really? So what did poor mankind do before the advent of the double glossy and photoshop? Here I thought there was a biological imperative to reproduce, but evidently I'm wrong. Now you tell me biology compels men to look at mass market, digitally altered images rather than perpetuating the species by copulating with the opposite sex. Truly fascinating. And to think all those homosexual men are eschewing nature for what? Love?
It really is quite remarkable how you've avoided learning any history whatsoever, so much so that you assume that your current ethos and media preference for the prepubescent form are somehow natural. As though beauty standards haven't changed at all, as though men by biological imperative are destined to fixate on exactly what corporate capitalism tells them they should. Just think that equal opportunity law, as founded in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, flies in the face of biology. The idea that the chronically insecure cannot create a hostile environment designed to drive women from public spaces is what. . . .hopelessly doomed because men can't possibly be expected to avoid their biological imperative to litter the workplace with girly mags?
You have no concept what concerns me. Believe me, there is little I care about less than what you and guys like the man who compares himself to apes look at. You think far too highly of yourself to imagine I care even the slightest about your preferences or that you somehow speak for all men. Clearly you do not.
I reject your argument, not because of "prejudice," "emotional need" or "irrationality," but because I'm not a complete imbecile.
seabeyond
(110,159 posts)so true. too fucking funny. but but but... you are being all that in intellectual and logical. it cannot be. whe emotion hysteria is our only driving factor.
that would be that cult like new religion of evo psychology that have all the men in an uproar of hysteria holding up their man cards, all in the name of a debunked science.
WhaTHellsgoingonhere
(5,252 posts)Republican men, on us because we're here to be scapegoated.
It's truly annoying as all fuck, too!
Lunacee_2013
(529 posts)Not as much as on the right, of course, but it is there. And it's disappointing to see it. It's like when I hear another white person say something racist or when a family member says something homophobic, I have to stand up and say something, just like I would if I saw/heard something sexist. I just won't allow that b.s. into my life anymore. It's too hateful and negative and stupid to put up with.
WhaTHellsgoingonhere
(5,252 posts)Lunacee_2013
(529 posts)Internet debate forums usually never end this pleasantly.
BainsBane
(53,001 posts)progressoid
(49,825 posts)Well, DU opened it's doors in 2001 so...2001.
CrispyQ
(36,226 posts)WhaTHellsgoingonhere
(5,252 posts)that's a HUGE problem, too
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)But from what I see of them they are pretty offensive too...
I just think that folks would be better off seeing past color, gender, and orientation and having the common sense to realize there are differences.
WhaTHellsgoingonhere
(5,252 posts)I could tell right away from your "live and let live" attitude toward the Michael Sam announcement. If you recall, I was the one saying, "Nope, guys, not gonna happen."
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)WhaTHellsgoingonhere
(5,252 posts)puleezee!
Inconsistent moderating around these matters...or, perhaps men simply don't report these to mods so they rage on whereas women do, and they get shut down.
Who knows????
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Unfair custody results? Thank the dumb myth that women are better caretakers.
Unfairly treated like sexual predators? Blame the tying men's worth to their sexual conquests.
Women aren't oppressing men; men are just finding any excuse to claim oppression without noticing that the patriarchal gender roles pushed for millennia are far more to blame than a few feminists.
WhaTHellsgoingonhere
(5,252 posts)displaced too often on good men around here.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Women are not bashing men around here, but stupid behaviors of certain men.
Men as a group don't need defending. We're doing just fine.
WhaTHellsgoingonhere
(5,252 posts)I think you're discussing apples (big picture) and I'm discussing oranges (DU).
WhaTHellsgoingonhere
(5,252 posts)...crossover and defend men. On the other hand, many men support women all the time.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Defend white or straight people?
WhaTHellsgoingonhere
(5,252 posts)You just decided to say I'm demanding this of others.
FAIL
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Why even mention seabeyond defending men? Do members of a persecuted minority have the obligation to defend the majority as well?
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts).
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
* will start replying with doors so that I can crossover and help a man out when I read something that would normally call for a
BaZinga.
cos, yanno ... Doors.
Skittles
(152,964 posts)*LIKED IT TOO*
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Major Nikon
(36,814 posts)What more of the gender warriors should realize is that most of us are on one side or the other of the same coin (some are in the middle). Condeming one type of sexism while giving a pass to other types, encouraging other types, or participating in other types is counterproductive to gender equality.
WhaTHellsgoingonhere
(5,252 posts)Thanks Major.
<3 to you
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)Calling misandry a "HUGE" problem in comparison to misogyny is like claiming that smoking a joint is equivalent to being a major heroin manufacturer.
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!!!
4,000-year-old erotica depicts a strikingly racy ancient sexuality
Clay plaques at The Israel Museum, made 1,500 years before the Kama Sutra, display graphically that Old Babylonian culture held an exalted view of s
Read more: 4,000-year-old erotica depicts a strikingly racy ancient sexuality | The Times of Israel
http://www.timesofisrael.com/4000-year-old-erotica-depicts-a-strikingly-racy-ancientsexuality/#ixzz2tW414L5r
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)so much suffering for men due to job and pay discrimination........
WhaTHellsgoingonhere
(5,252 posts)someone with "their" :whistling: lame one-size-fits-all mentality came to the discussion with "their" mind made up about what the OP is trying to convey.
kestrel91316
(51,666 posts)THEY are responsible for most of the world's suffering, because along with their misogyny, they also tend to be conservative, biblical literalists, anti-environmentalist, pro-war, pro-death penalty, etc etc etc.
Nevernose
(13,081 posts)Men do face problems that women do not. Is it is bad as the problems women face? Highly doubtful.
I think the problem is context and forum. DU probably isn't the best place to discuss these issues, nor is the Internet.
Case in point: my wife, a lawyer, is currently taking a course about men and the various ways men get screwed over by the legal system in particular and society in general. They discuss issues such as stereotypical gender roles, unfair outcomes in legal proceedings, and the extraordinarily lopsided suicide rate among men and boys. The professor is a woman, as is half the class.
It's really fascinating stuff. More importantly, these are important issues that deserve to be talked about. But it only works for that class because of the context and forum.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)theKed
(1,235 posts)no such thing as "reverse racism". There is only one kind of racism.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)theKed
(1,235 posts)There's no "reverse racism" because it's not "reverse" anything. It's just racism, regardless of who's hating who.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)It kinda reminds me of the South of the olden days when people used to (ever so wrongly!) think that "Naw, white folks can't do no rape. Whites is civilized peepul. Always dem goddam (fill in the blank) that do it.". Different circumstances, yes, but same general basic type of binary logic.
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)Men aren't oppressed in this society. Anybody who thinks they are is a goddamn moron.
TDale313
(7,820 posts)It's as disingenuous as screaming about reverse discrimination or the latest I've heard- heterophobia.
WhaTHellsgoingonhere
(5,252 posts)And going forward we'll start calling it that for you two.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Kurska
(5,739 posts)NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Yes, there are women who irrationally hate men.
Yes, there are members of minorities who hate whites.
Yes, there are probably members of the LGBT community who hate straight people.
But they're a minority of these minorities, and they're certainly not institutionalized like misogyny, homophobia, and racism. This false equivalence nonsense has to stop, whether it's misandry, "heterophobia", or reverse racism. It's the majority trying to make the minorities they've oppressed for centuries feel like they should take some blame as well.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)I'd wager that at least 90% of DU understands this crucial fact.
With that said, however, this does not discount personal bigotries and prejudices in the least: Yes, People of Color occasionally can be racist against whites. Women can occasionally be sexist against men. And there are even a few LGBT people who may distrust heterosexual people as a whole. But just as this is true, the opposite is also true: Just because someone of any ethnicity can be racist towards another, or either gender sexist towards the other, etc., does not at all disprove the fact that systemic prejudice is still kicking and screaming even in 2014, and that some people are affected worse than others by prejudices in general(i.e. white people are not the targets of systemic racism, men are not the targets of systemic sexism, etc.).
And in fact, personal prejudices are one of the primary components that keep the remnants of systemic prejudice alive. The former, sadly, may never be fully eradicated, but the latter certainly *can be*. And it's up to all of us to fix it.
WhaTHellsgoingonhere
(5,252 posts)want to address the spirit of the OP.
WEAK!
WhaTHellsgoingonhere
(5,252 posts)where's the eyeroll emoticon
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)mythology
(9,527 posts)We are more likely to commit suicide, more likely to not have a college degree, more likely to be in some segment of the criminal justice system, more likely to be murdered, etc.
What you call impatience with stupidity I would say is actually more of an unwillingness to consider the notion that you could be wrong. That there are aspects of our society that favor one gender over another and it's not all one way no matter how much anybody wants to insist it is.
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)It is a fundamental misunderstanding of feminism fail to realize that we're trying to make things better for EVERYBODY.
Men suffer when their partners are underpaid. Men suffer when narrow gender roles paint them into a box.
Women are more likely to seek higher education to compensate for being chronically underpaid and frozen out of relatively well-paying unskilled labor.
Violent socialization means men are both the perpetrators and the victims of the lion's share of violent crime.
Gendered notions of parental responsibility hurt children.
Who's doing something about all of those problems?
FEMINISTS.
Who isn't doing jack shit?
"Men's rights" advocates
What DO they do (besides whine on the internet?) They fought against the Violence Against Women Act, and against the protection of trafficked women in particular. They harass women who express themselves in the media or on the internet. Increasingly they team up with conservative religious groups to advocate against women's rights or health care.
XemaSab
(60,212 posts)n/t
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)Nanjing to Seoul
(2,088 posts)or my best friend who went through one for nine years because of his psycho ex-wife.
Men may not be "oppressed," but there is a legal double standard in many cases.
BTW, WTF is a neckbeard?
LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)This, I assure you, will be a great surprise to him.
Google is your friend.
Nanjing to Seoul
(2,088 posts)You tell your dad that. I'll tell my brother (who is the sole income of the family because his psycho ex-wife refuses to work) he has been raising two kids on his own, because his psycho ex-wife has also been caught cheating on him in his own bed and sexting other men while ignoring the children.
But, because she's the mother, the judge gave her everything and told my brother to pay everything and denied him access. Oh, let's also include that his psycho ex-wife is now living with the two kids in a double wide with her alcoholic father.
Sorry. . .I dislike people saying things you say. It's like when women say "all men think with their dicks." If I say "all women care about is money," I'm a sexist.
I dislike all of this, when it directed at men or women. But, when directed at men, it is acceptable.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)eShirl
(18,466 posts)Eleanors38
(18,318 posts)Auntie Bush
(17,528 posts)A young ventriloquist is touring Norway and puts on a show in a small fishing town. With his dummy on his knee, he starts going through his usual dumb blonde jokes.
>>
>>Suddenly, a blonde woman in the fourth row stands on her chair and starts shouting, "I've heard enough of your stupid blonde jokes. What makes you think you can stereotype Norwegian blonde women that way? What does the color of a woman's hair have to do with her worth as a human being? Its men like you who keep women like me from being respected at work and in the community, and from reaching our full potential as people. Its people like you that make others think that all blondes are dumb! You and your kind continue to perpetuate discrimination against not only blondes, but women in general, pathetically all in the name of humor!"
>>
>>The embarrassed ventriloquist begins to apologize, and the blonde yells:
>>
>>"You stay out of this! ......I'm talking to that little shit on your lap."
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)I think reacting to folks based on their immutable characteristics is fucked up regardless of what their immutable characteristics are.
Misandry is just one instance of treating somebody unfairly because of an immutable characteristic...
Oh, some poster opined that people that complain about misandry are "neckbeards". I believe that's a pejorative... it didn't bother me because I'm clean shaven. It's easier to shave everything and not grow a beard and I don't complain about misandry either. Just not a priority.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Millennia of bullshit gender roles set up by patriarchal societies have kept women oppressed, and now that men realize that this can negatively affect them as well, they just hop on the opportunity to heap yet more blame on women. They call it misandry to make it seem like they have it even remotely as rough as women.
It's the same nonsense logic that gives us reverse racism and heterophobia. A majority that has beaten down on minority groups for millennia is finally seeing those groups push back and erode their privilege and power, so they just try to avoid any sort of blame and responsibility by claiming that those groups are just as much to blame.
Major Nikon
(36,814 posts)The patriarchy is a social construct which even you admit harms both men and women. Trying to blame one gender or the other simply reduces it to a conspiracy theory and not even a remotely intelligent one.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)A lot of it stems from racism and xenophobia, "sissifying" the next generation or just outright not producing it to fight the foreign hordes that "threaten" western civilization.
Birth rates decline in the west, so blame women for not choosing to be mothers and instead pursue their own career.
Major Nikon
(36,814 posts)People are blaming women for not being mothers? Other than flat earthers or other assorted outlier loons, who does that?
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)It's the point behind the anti-abortion movement and the drive behind anti-equality.
Women are expected to give birth and raise children and swell the nation's ranks. Some groups like Quiverfull are obvious about it, others disguise it as "pro-life."
Major Nikon
(36,814 posts)Then you promote the idea of the patriarchy as a conspiracy theory.
Got it.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Blaming the negative effects of gender roles experienced by men on women is what I meant makes no sense. Patriarchy most certainly is a thing, and by its very definition, men over the millennia are to blame for establishing and reinforcing it.
It's not necessarily a conspiracy theory. It's just the continuation of what made sense or what was done early in human civilization. Men hunted, fought wars and subsequently led societies, and women gave birth to the next generation of hunters and warriors, and if they didn't, the city/tribe/nation risked annihilation by a neighbor.
It's a vestigial social hierarchy that has no place in the 21st century.
Major Nikon
(36,814 posts)It isn't a conspiracy theory, period. It was established for the protection of women and children out of necessity which is exactly why every civilization on earth established it. Without it whatever civilization you originated from would have ceased to exist all those millennial ago as you seem to acknowledge. So blaming men for it seems a bit lame as does blaming men for reinforcing it today. You are exactly correct in that it has no place today, but there's no shortage of women reinforcing whatever vestiges of it remain and while women have made significant advances in rights over the last 100 years, men still have pretty much the same responsibilities you identified.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Yes, given the early days of human civilization, it absolutely was necessary in civilizations at risk of conflict with their neighbors (I qualify that because some cultures that faced a very low risk of conflict were matrilineal--the Hopi, for example).
But technology has and will continue to weaken the barrier between the genders, in terms of what is or is not the responsibility of one over the other (at least where tools and machines make up for physical weakness).
But as it seems you and I largely agree on the key points, I don't think there's necessarily a reason to keep going. It's not a conspiracy, it was necessary at one point and became culturally ingrained over the centuries, and it's now irrelevant and probably does more harm than good. The cultural appendix.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)It's when people refuse to acknowledge that male privilege exists that we have a problem.
If they feel that way, then it needs to be explained that it isn't the case. Otherwise, it makes no more sense than white people feeling "beset upon" for being white.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)So there are no problems that attach to being a male and the expectations that come from being a male?
And if a male has a problem with not meeting the expectations of being male his suffering is of no consequence?
That doesn't sound very empathetic to me.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)But there's always a few that *do* shame all men.....they're called radfems.
And there are certainly those who do shame white people just for being white....now, granted, some of these may just be trolls trying to make social justice people look bad, but some really do believe that only whites can be racist or that People of Color are magically immune from racism 'just cause, you know? They may be a small minority of those who attach to Social Justice, but they sure are *loud*.....just like the radfems.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Women are not oppressing men. Misandry is like reverse racism. If you fix the original problem, (rampant)male privilege ( hellova lotof rapes, etc) , Misandry (barely exists) would not even be noticeable.
Same with racism. Fix the reasons that some black people hate white people ( racism, legal lynchings, extreme sentencing, racial profiling, etc.) then reverse racism goes away.
AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts)It would require that "normal" racism be the absolute unique province of a single ethnic group.....which it isn't(which also, btw, disproves the "POC can't be any sort of racist" weirdness you sometimes see on Tumblr and places like that. Which, btw, has no bearing on the reality of institutionalized versions of racism and other cultural prejudices.).
Same even applies to sexism, too. "Reverse" sexism would require that sexism be absolutely unique to men; it isn't, so women can be sexist as well. Though it doesn't disprove the reality of institutionalized versions of sexism, as I'm sure most will agree.
deutsey
(20,166 posts)I've seen (and participated in) my share of flame wars.
But this recent shit is seriously making me want to diminish my time here.
yuiyoshida
(41,761 posts)IT must suck to be them.
Nanjing to Seoul
(2,088 posts)him.
Remember, men have all the responsibility of parenthood and none of the rights. That's why my brother's ex-wife pretty much kidnapped his children and the court is doing precious little to allow him to see the children he hasn't seen since November.
If my brother did that to his psycho ex-wife, he'd be in jail now.
Texasgal
(17,029 posts)Seriously.
This has been going on here for a long time.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)alp227
(31,961 posts)False equivalency flamebait. Anyone remember the old DU whenever flamebait threads like this would be locked before the fire icon?
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)Last edited Mon Feb 17, 2014, 04:23 PM - Edit history (1)
I have been a member eleven years, just sayin...
I believe I have had one thread locked in that time and that was a thread I requested be locked, just sayin...
CFLDem
(2,083 posts)Easiest way to rule over people is to divide and conquer.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Look around and ask yourself whether misogyny or "misandry" is a bigger force in the country right now.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts).
redqueen
(115,096 posts)You empathize with them too?
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)Many people in society are put upon in different ways and their hurt is tangible. I stand with all of them. To have empathy for one person in genuine distress and not the other strikes me as cruel.
redqueen
(115,096 posts)White people are not oppressed on the basis of the color of their skin, and men are not oppressed on the basis of their sex.
Hardships != oppression.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)redqueen
(115,096 posts)with the idea of empathy for the victims of "misandry" (or hell, even its existence), and take a good long look at the results.
Hint: There will be some overlap with people who think racism against white people is actually a thing.
Consider the kind of mindset that pushes this false balance bullshit.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)"I don't feel your pain". How does that sound? Not good, does it?
Being a male comes with certain societal demands and not conforming to these demands results in emotional distress which manifests itself in depression, problems controlling aggressive behavior, and alcohol abuse.
I don't want to just single out males. Being gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered, Latino, Latina, Asian, Jewish, African American, et cetera comes with it its own set of challenges...
In the spirit of my original post, misanthropy sucks too...
redqueen
(115,096 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)redqueen
(115,096 posts)Um, yeah.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)If society is holding men to standards that are killing them to meet it seems callous to argue what we should call it when we can be spending that time changing those standards.
redqueen
(115,096 posts)Many men are doing so as well - but those men are rejected, mocked and ridiculed by the men who subscribe to this "misandry" bullshit.
Society is set up as a patriarchy. Look at the halls of power and tell me with a straight face that it is the oppression of men based on their sex that leads to the pressures society puts on men. It is not. It is the hierarchical model of capitalism which is to blame. It's nothing to do with oppression of men qua men. It's simply the tradition of exploiting those you consider beneath you - a foundational principle of patriarchy
There are very good reasons why those who have been actively involved in feminism and fighting the patriarchy are sensitive to the language used in these discussions.
The types of people who want to call "misandry" a problem often defend MUCH of the knuckle-dragging crap that patriarchy saddles men with, stubbornly and ignorantly insisting that any effort to change these forces is tantamount to 'saying there's something wrong with men / masculinity'. They don't use awareness of these oppressive forces to change society, they use this knowledge not as motivation to reach out to the men who support the current structure of society... NO, they use it as a bludgeon with which to attack women.
Coding the attacks on patriarchy and misogyny as "misandry" is practically a dead giveaway that you're not dealing with someone who isn't exactly genuine with their concerns about the unfair burdens patriarchy places on men.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,705 posts)AverageJoe90
(10,745 posts).....in *some* circles. Is it institutionalized, or nearly as common as racism *from* white folks? 99% of us will agree that no, this is not the case, for either. But yes, it does happen, and when it does, should be condemned, just as any other form of racism.....no exceptions, no excuses. I'm sure everyone at least agrees on the latter.
polly7
(20,582 posts)Harmony Blue
(3,978 posts)but this is not surprising.
K&R.
1awake
(1,494 posts)What I've witnessed on both side of the... ongoing.. debate... suck. One side makes fun of the other while that side appears to lump all men as inherently evil. At this point, I think both sides need to pull up there grandma/grandpa briefs/panties/whities and grow the F*** up.