''The Second Sexism''.

[Deicide]

You might not have realised it, but men are being oppressed. In many walks of life, they are routinely discriminated against in ways women are not. So unrecognised is this phenomenon that the mere mention of it will appear laughable to some.

That, at least, is the premise of a book by a South African philosophy professor which claims that sexism against men is a widespread yet unspoken malaise. In The Second Sexism, shortly to be published in the UK, David Benatar, head of the philosophy department at Cape Town University, argues that "more boys drop out of school, fewer men earn degrees, more men die younger, more are incarcerated" and that the issue is so under-researched it has become the prejudice that dare not speak its name.

"It's a neglected form of sexism," Benatar says in a telephone interview. "It's true that in the developed world the majority of economic and political roles are occupied by males. But if you look at the bottom – for example, the prison population, the homeless population, or the number of people dropping out of school – that is overwhelmingly male. You tend to find more men at the very top but also at the very bottom."

The American men's rights author Warren Farrell calls it "the glass cellar". There might be a glass ceiling for women, Farrell once told the Observer, but "of the 25 professions ranked lowest [in the US], 24 of them are 85-100% male. That's things like roofer, welder, garbage collector, sewer maintenance – jobs with very little security, little pay and few people want them."

Do Benatar and Farrell have a point? A handful of statistics seems to bear out their thesis. Not only are men more likely to be conscripted into military service, to be the victims of violence, and to lose custody of their children in the event of a divorce, but tests conducted in 2009 by the programme for international student assessment, carried out by the OECD thinktank, showed that boys lag a year behind girls at reading in every industrialised country. They work longer hours, too: in 2010 the Office for National Statistics found that men in the UK work an average of 39 hours a week, compared with 34 for women. Healthwise, men develop heart disease 10 years earlier than women, on average, and young men are three times more likely to commit suicide.

"The biggest challenge is … tackling the male tendency to suffer in silence," says Tim Samuels, presenter of Radio 5's Men's Hour. "We're getting better at admitting to our weaknesses or seeking help, but there's still such a long way to go."

Men are also increasingly the butt of jokes. In a recent article for Grazia magazine, one male writer took exception to comedian Jo Brand claiming that her favourite man was "a dead one" and an advertisement for oven cleaner with the tagline: "So easy, even a man can do it." In a Guardian article on Friday, it was pointed out that the stereotyped image of a man incapable of growing up has become a staple of US film comedies – the most recent example being Jeff, Who Lives at Home, starring Jason Segel as a man still living with his long-suffering mother who lets him smoke weed in her basement.

Would the same humour be levelled at women? Benatar thinks not. "It's very hard to quantify the level of disadvantage," he says. "But one form of discrimination that is universal is the greater tolerance of violence against males. The victims of murder and severe assault are disproportionately male. There have been lab experiments with both men and women where it has been shown that we have fewer inhibitions inflicting violence against men than women."

He laughs when asked how the women in his life have responded to The Second Sexism. "They seem to be positive," he says. "Perhaps I just mix with people who are more reasonable."

In her 2008 book The Sexual Paradox, the psychologist and journalist Susan Pinker covered some of the same territory, also highlighting the anti-male bias in education and preventative medicine. "The majority of children with developmental delays, behavioural and learning problems are male," she says. "For the most part, our school system fails them. Many end up dropping out. Our mental health system, too, is focused on helping those who seek out assistance. That's not the forte of most men.

"I think the five-to-six-year gap between women's and men's lifespans could be shortened if more work was done to address male risk-taking and stress-related disease – which kill so many more men than women in their prime. The recent spate of male suicides during the financial crisis is a good example of the way male suffering is often invisible."

Another area of concern, according to Duncan Fisher, co-founder of the UK's Fatherhood Institute, is the "gratuitous exclusion" of men from child-rearing: midwifery services are described as "one-to-one care" and whereas employers frequently allow women flexible working hours if they are mothers, the same option is rarely offered to men in similar situations. "It can be so alienating," says Fisher. "Segregation, in a way, has got worse even though, under the radar, the role of fathers is actually increasing all the time. With the recession, there's much more sharing of childcare, but there's a growing gap between the reality and the rhetoric. A lot of early years services are still just 'mothers' groups', which is worrying because it leaves vulnerable men to sort out their own narrative. They don't believe they exist. They stay silent."

There are those, however, who take exception to the notion that men are a downtrodden minority, unable to speak out for fear of ridicule or repression. "It's an idea that's made more comebacks than Madonna," says Julie Bindel, the feminist writer and political activist. "It's total and utter bullshit. There are areas where men are paying the price that male supremacy gives them – there's absolutely no doubt about that.

"My dad, a working-class man from the north-east, had an absolutely horrendous job in a steel mill and he came home bad-tempered, knackered and underpaid. What he could do was come home and dominate – not in a physical way – but he could be the boss over his wife and children, he could go and sink 10 pints in the pub.

"The reality is that the public domain belongs entirely to men and the disadvantages they face are just the price they pay. It's tough cheese. Masculinity is just learned behaviour in the same way that femininity is. Ultimately, if we dismantle the patriarchy, that would end up being better for men, too."

"You can see the ways that patriarchy can be hard on men who don't fit the mould," concedes Natasha Walter, the author of Living Dolls: The Return of Sexism and The New Feminism. "There is more debate to be had about the sacrifices that men make, but obviously I wouldn't go so far as to say that shows women hold all the cards. You have to look at the structural inequality. Sexism against men doesn't exist in the same way because of the way the system is balanced."

Benatar believes this is a false distinction – and that our ignorance of the "second sexism" stems from what he terms "partisan feminists", who are interested only in the advancement of women's rights, rather than true equality and co-operation between the sexes. "It is true that women occupy fewer of the highest and most powerful positions," he writes, "but this also does not show that women are in general worse off. To make the claim that women are worse off, one must compare all women with all men, rather than only the most successful women with the most successful men. Otherwise, one could as easily compare the least successful men with the least successful women and one would then find that men are worse off."

If we measured "success" differently, taking into account a sense of broader wellbeing, gained from family relationships and a flexible work-life balance, would men be losing out? Pinker believes so. "'Global power' as measured by bean-counting the number of male chief executive officers in industry, for example, is not the only value in a just society," she says. "Health, happiness, the richness of one's human relationships, job satisfaction and how long one lives are also important values. Men are lagging behind women in all those areas."

Still, there are some men who remain relatively untroubled by this state of affairs. Tim Samuels, for one, readily concedes that we tolerate jokes about men that wouldn't be made about women or ethnic minorities "because men haven't faced hundreds of years of persecution".

"We shouldn't lose our sense of humour over this," says Samuels. "A few gags on Loose Women aren't going to signal the demise of mankind."


http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/may/13/men-victims-new-oppression

[Sputnik_1]

Gender roles are stressful and put under huge amount of social pressure both sexes. Women, of course, have it much worse under patriarchism, they are constantly showed as infantalized, submissive, sexual, objects to be used by men. On the other hand you get that unrealistic expectation from men to be always strong, decisive,protecting and dominating. At the same time man is often represented as hopeless in houseworks, cooking etc (considered women's stuff) and in this context is often patronized by women.
I am aware of the striking dominance of men over women, but differently from some "femminists" that I've met I believe in equality and I always try to underline that women aren't superior or better, they are equal and need to be treated so. On the same basis, men should be free to be compassionate, emotive without being considered weak or effeminate.
So Lorena Bobbit's fans... fuck off :/

[Jimmie Higgins]

1. Yes modern gender roles have developed along with bourgeois society and put pressure on men as well as women. To be a "man" means killing off anything not associated with "manliness" - to be unfeeling, to not complain about your job, to not be interested in child-raising (just play-time) since you're supposed to be at work anyway, etc.

2. I am totally unconvinced that men face repression AS men. While anti-female sexism is totally entwined and the result of class society, sexism does cross class-lines to an extent. Regular and Elite women are hit with sexism in different ways, but the idea that working class women should be at home raising kids still results in even a ruling class asshole like Hilary Clinton having to prove she can bake cookies. In most of the examples of "anti-male" sexism above, the repression does not cross class lines, so the very real "glass basement" is not one of gender, but of class. Working class men are targeted by police and so on, but it's because of their class and maybe other considerations, not because they are male. The fact that men are not given custody of children in divorces as much is not a function of anti-male sexism, it's a function of anti-female sexism which ideologically argued that women are NATURALLY child care-givers.

[corolla]

I think its a pretty ridiculous claim, to be honest. I mean, there are certain problems that effect men disproportionately, there's no doubt. As noted in the article, people with learning disabilities are disproportionately male. Men have a shorter life expectancy than women. Men develop heart disease earlier than women. Men are overrepresented in traditional blue collar manual labor. But to chalk any of these things up to sexism against men is completely absurd. I mean fuck, whats next? The fact that men are disproportionately effected by erectile dysfunction demonstrates SEXISM AGAINST MEN. Give me a break.

[corolla]

But yeah, working class and/or poor men often have it really rough, for sure. And the fact that they are men certainly doesn't make their lives any easier. But as Jimmie Higgins noted, their lives are rough because of their class position, not because they are the victims of sexism against men.

[Ele'ill]

But yeah, working class and/or poor men often have it really rough, for sure. And the fact that they are men certainly doesn't make their lives any easier.

I'd think their lives are still easier than women's.

[Rafiq]

Fuck this Idealist sack of shit-of an article.

The root of all these problems, we attribute to the Bourgeois class. Like 90%+ of which are Men.

Claims of Reverse Sexism/Racism are in themselves Sexist/Racist.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Tenka]

There is no second sexism. Most of this is the same sexism, felt by men in disadvantageous class positions. On the other hand, men being depicted as puerile oafs in U.S. film (AND TELEVISION) "comedies" is not sexism, but just what appeals to a poor and warped sense of humour wrought under conditions of patriarchy.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Sexism faced by men is sexism faced by men of color. Men of color, particularly ones who have certain cultural markings, are treated as dangerous, violent, stupid, etc by institutions. I don't think there is really a parallel phenomena for men in general, however, so "Men" as such don't seem to be the victims of institutional sexism.

Some men complain that they are less likely to have rights over the children in a divorce, perhaps because the institution of the family is still seen as the woman's institution, but in regards to business opportunities and socio-economic advancement the institutions are still male-dominated.

Either way, sexism against women is a much more pervasive and structurally persistent phenomena, and any attempt to argue otherwise seems more like an attempt to sell papers/books/create controversy.

[gorillafuck]

I'd think their lives are still easier than women's.that's a ridiculous blanket statement to make.

[NewLeft]

Sexism faced by men is sexism faced by men of color. Men of color, particularly ones who have certain cultural markings, are treated as dangerous, violent, stupid, etc by institutions. I don't think there is really a parallel phenomena for men in general, however, so "Men" as such don't seem to be the victims of institutional sexism.
Except that's racism.

[Valdyr]

Saying that sexism hurts men too I'd agree with; saying that there is sexism against men is ridiculous. Sexism is a structural phenomenon - Benatar's analysis is typical of a liberal, where oppression is located in a bunch of disparate instances of inequity rather than systemic oppression which manifests itself in various specific ways.

Also, if I remember correctly, this is the same philosopher who argued that all other things being equal, it's "better never to have been," so that bringing life into the world is always immoral. Saying his book was not very well liked in the journals I read would be an understatement, though it is a wonderful example of the absurdities that taking utilitarian moral logic to its extreme can lead to.

[Krano]

Sexism can't be directed against men because men are strong emotionless golems? wonderful example would be conscription, here in Finland you must serve the state (if your a man) or you goto prison for 1 year or more. So you know if any Feminist wants to explain to me that there is no sexism against men they can come visit me in jail and tell me all about it.

[Revolution starts with U]

Krano, that's sexism against women, not men.

[Luc]

Sexism can't be directed against men because men are strong emotionless golems? wonderful example would be conscription, here in Finland you must serve the state (if your a man) or you goto prison for 1 year or more. So you know if any Feminist wants to explain to me that there is no sexism against men they can come visit me in jail and tell me all about it.

read this...


Saying that sexism hurts men too I'd agree with; saying that there is sexism against men is ridiculous. Sexism is a structural phenomenon - Benatar's analysis is typical of a liberal, where oppression is located in a bunch of disparate instances of inequity rather than systemic oppression which manifests itself in various specific ways.


Sexism isn't "sexism against women" or "Sexism against men" its just sexism and some of it's manifestation harm different people

also about that conscription.. as RSWU said it also affects women negativley and your ignoring the fact that in some countries women are conscripted...

[Krano]

Krano, that's sexism against women, not men.
I really feel the pain for women not having go to prison for no reason, women can still join the military or do civil service if they wish but there not forced to it like men.

[Revolution starts with U]

Ya, because they are not "physically and/or mentally fit to be soldiers" in the eyes of society.

[Valdyr]

Sexism isn't "sexism against women" or "Sexism against men" its just sexism and some of it's manifestation harm different people


...where does this contradict what I said? Unless you're agreeing with me.

[Luc]

...where does this contradict what I said? Unless you're agreeing with me.

Im agreeing :lol:

my bad actually, i really wasn't even fully understanding what ya said had to read a couple times :unsure:

I meant for Krano to read what you said and then I pitifully tried to summarize :lol:

[Valdyr]

Im agreeing :lol:

my bad actually, i really wasn't even fully understanding what ya said had to read a couple times :unsure:

I meant for Krano to read what you said

Okay, sorry if I came off as defensive. I think we're on the same page now. :)

[Luc]

Okay, sorry if I came off as defensive. I think we're on the same page now. :)

no worries ya didn't :)

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Except that's racism.

It's not *just* racism, it's also sexism, young men of color are seen as particularly threatening as men of color, as in, not just people of color but also as young men. Stereotyping doesn't often fit into nice neat little categories, it can sometimes overlap. In this case, it's an overlapping of sexism and racism which is particularly harmful to young men of color.

[gozai]

I think it's ridiculous that some on the left are so fanatically opposed to acknowledging sexism against men that when clear examples of it are shown it's just ignored without further notice. It should be pretty clear to everyone that sexism against men exist, some examples being conscription, longer prison sentences for the same crime, and men being called pussies if they cry.

[Revolution starts with U]

The other two sure. Conscription is sexism against women, plain and simple. If they were seen as fit and strong, they would be conscripted as well.

[Luc]

also, I would like to restate, women are conscripted in some countries...

[RedAtheist]

The question of whether sexism is more harmful to men or to women is irrelevent, both when it comes to recognising the need to fight against gender stereotypes and when it comes to determining which gender sexism is being directed against.

The key point which the article fails to discuss is that the male gender stereotype is about dominance and that the female gender stereotype is about submission. If the gender stereotypes are adhered to, men will dominate women. One could argue that some men might not enjoy dominating women and that their dominant position is harmful to their emotional wellbeing. This might well be correct, but it does not change the essential point that gender stereotypes give men power and take power away from women.

Its like pointing out that being a capitalist is not emotionally fufiling or uplifting. Sure its probably true that some capitalists are unhappy deep down, but does this mean that those seeking to put an end to class divisions should focus on this fact at the expense of the worker's struggle? (and shout crude insults against members of the workers' movement based on how they look?)

In relation to the point about men in the military. First there is the fact that those returning from war are often worship as heroes. Then there is the fact that in a war zone a soldier is still more powerful than a non-soldier. Think of it this way. If you are a purely self-interested person forced to inhabit a war zone would you rather be the untrained person without the guns in danger of being killed and sometimes raped by invading soldiers (the role usually played by women in a war) or the person with the gun who is capable of doing the killing and the raping (the role usually played by men in a war)? I don't mean to paint all soldiers with an overly broad brush, but this does often happen in a war. Not to mention women being raped by soldiers on their own side.

I like to think that people resist conscription for moral reasons (they refuse to kill in order to serve the interests of their nation's ruling class, rather than refusing to join the military because they frightened of being killed.) Afterall if you regard placing people in dangerous situations as oppressive, you would have to regard all revolutionary armies as oppressive even if they fight for the sake of ordinary workers against the capitalists.

[fabian]

women are conscripted in some countries...
And should be. Gender roles shouldn't exist as much as "racial roles" shouldn't, the obvious exception being the begining of motherhood (giving birth and breastfeeding).

[EdinSumar]

This takes me back to reading about "masculism" and the Men's Rights Movement, almost to a tee stuffed full of misogynists abusing their own perceived victimhood to be aggressive and overt in their latent sexism.

[fabian]

There's no men or women or majority or minority rights- there's human right's, we're all human, and everything else would be discrimination, positive or negative. Patriarchism is not bad only because it oppresses women, but also "shetlers" them, that is, incapacitates them in being able to take care of themselves. And the stuff about laws that you must have some percentage (up to 50) of women on some positions, what an idiocy, I never saw that applied to warehouse workers and in general blue collar and physical jobs, like there's something wrong with blue collar jobs, I'm a blue collar worker, and also do the so called "women jobs" around the house all the time, and I'm proud of both.

[honest john's firing squad]

And should be.
you're a complete bell-end.

[fabian]

I love you too

[Luc]

And should be. Gender roles shouldn't exist as much as "racial roles" shouldn't, the obvious exception being the begining of motherhood (giving birth and breastfeeding).

seriously? :huh:

how about just getting rid of conscription for anyone? :huh:

[Tim Finnegan]

http://www.elections.org.nz/files/women-suff-cartoon_001.jpg

[ArseCynic]

The Education system in Canada is female-based. I agree with this thread completely.

[ifeelyou]

Sexism faced by men is sexism faced by men of color. Men of color, particularly ones who have certain cultural markings, are treated as dangerous, violent, stupid, etc by institutions. I don't think there is really a parallel phenomena for men in general, however, so "Men" as such don't seem to be the victims of institutional sexism.

Some men complain that they are less likely to have rights over the children in a divorce, perhaps because the institution of the family is still seen as the woman's institution, but in regards to business opportunities and socio-economic advancement the institutions are still male-dominated.

Either way, sexism against women is a much more pervasive and structurally persistent phenomena, and any attempt to argue otherwise seems more like an attempt to sell papers/books/create controversy.

I don't have much to say other than excellent intersectional analysis of how racism and sexism not only can negatively affect women of color but also men of color.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

The other two sure. Conscription is sexism against women, plain and simple. If they were seen as fit and strong, they would be conscripted as well.

... you could make the case that additional duties are imposed on men arbitrarily regardless of their personal qualities, because of the supposedly inherently violent/aggressive nature of men, which is really the same reason men are charged more for the same crime or called "pussies" when they cry. Men are given the duties of violence and death for the nation, or it is forced upon them, without their consent regardless of whether or not they are particularly violent or nationalistic people. This can be seen in the way men who avoid drafts for pacifistic reasons are dismissed as wimps who failed to do their duty to their nation/people/state etc. Conscription thus could be construed as institutional sexism vs men.

The bigger counter-argument against that as a major institutional oppression against men is that war between Capitalist powers is unlikely, while women are routinely being exploited. Who cares that Finland has conscription when Finland is not going to need it in the obviously foreseeable future, until that is the case it is only virtual conscription against men? During war time there will be anti-draft rallies, but until war time, it is more important to rally over women's issues since women are being more harmed, overall, by systemic oppression right now. It just seems more *immediate* to deal with Women's Issues

[nomad05273k]

I wouldn't say men are being oppressed but this kind of annoyed me; to get into the British Army they require men to reach at least lvl 10.2 on the bleep test whilst women must reach lvl 8.1, to do the same job! So if a man reaches lvl 9 he isn't deemed good enough but if a woman reaches lvl 8.5 she is. How is this good for either sex? Personally, if I were in the Army, I'd rather have a lvl 9 man in my squad than a lvl 8.5 woman

[Hiero]

The American men's rights author Warren Farrell calls it "the glass cellar". There might be a glass ceiling for women, Farrell once told the Observer, but "of the 25 professions ranked lowest [in the US], 24 of them are 85-100% male. That's things like roofer, welder, garbage collector, sewer maintenance – jobs with very little security, little pay and few people want them."

And who do the marry? Working class women either undemployed engaging in lesser paid work (and double exploitation in the form of unpaid labour in the form of family labour).

These comments of Warren Farrell and David Benata are deceitful. They comment on issues of class and gender and relabel it incorrectly as a "second sexism".

[Quail]

It's already been said, but gender roles oppress everyone. Women do have it worse than men, but there are many ways in which patriarchy negatively affects men. What annoys me is that lots of men fail to see this as part of a bigger picture.

For example, why are men rarely given custody of children? Because child-rearing is a woman's role. So it's really due to women's perceived inferiority and social role as homemaker/child-rearer that men are less likely to get custody of their children.

If men and women were seen as equals and there were no societal expectations based on gender, everyone would benefit.

[Hiero]

It's already been said, but gender roles oppress everyone. Women do have it worse than men, but there are many ways in which patriarchy negatively affects men. What annoys me is that lots of men fail to see this as part of a bigger picture.

For example, why are men rarely given custody of children? Because child-rearing is a woman's role. So it's really due to women's perceived inferiority and social role as homemaker/child-rearer that men are less likely to get custody of their children.

If men and women were seen as equals and there were no societal expectations based on gender, everyone would benefit.

That does not amount to oppression. Women are given custody over men because historically men abandoned their family responsbilities. It is only recently that men have began wanting custody of their children. It is an unforseen consequence of male privelage that institutions have no caught up to the demands of men, this does not equat to oppression.

[Hiero]

I wouldn't say men are being oppressed but this kind of annoyed me; to get into the British Army they require men to reach at least lvl 10.2 on the bleep test whilst women must reach lvl 8.1, to do the same job! So if a man reaches lvl 9 he isn't deemed good enough but if a woman reaches lvl 8.5 she is. How is this good for either sex? Personally, if I were in the Army, I'd rather have a lvl 9 man in my squad than a lvl 8.5 woman

Why would you care?

[Quail]

That does not amount to oppression. Women are given custody over men because historically men abandoned their family responsbilities. It is only recently that men have began wanting custody of their children. It is an unforseen consequence of male privelage that institutions have no caught up to the demands of men, this does not equat to oppression.
I don't really know what you're on about. I gave women being more likely to get custody of children as an example because it's something that male anti-feminists always use as an example.

[Hiero]

I don't really know what you're on about. I gave women being more likely to get custody of children as an example because it's something that male anti-feminists always use as an example.

I am a bit tired, I read it wrong and thought you gave that example as evidence that men are equally oppressed. I get what you mean now.

I still disagree that gender roles oppress everyone.

[Quail]

I still disagree that gender roles oppress everyone.
On what basis? Everyone is disadvantaged by gender roles, even if women do have it worse.

[Hiero]

On what basis? Everyone is disadvantaged by gender roles, even if women do have it worse.

Then the oppresion would just negate itself

I think you have missused the word oppression. Negativity does not equal oppression.

[Krano]

On what basis? Everyone is disadvantaged by gender roles, even if women do have it worse.
Whats up with your user title btw? no one here could get away with having there user title ''hysterical woman-hater''

[Tim Finnegan]

Whats up with your user title btw? no one here could get away with having there user title ''hysterical woman-hater''
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony)

[Agent Ducky]

Things I'd consider sexism against men are stuff like this:
http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/551783_3589084879357_1040395982_3253765_1710131095 _n.jpg
Because I saw this on my Facebook news feed and I was appalled, especially at all of the commenters agreeing with it . It reinforces gender roles, and nobody bothers to question it.
If it had been about "real women" needing to "get back in the kitchen" or something at least some people probably would have freaked out. Maybe it's not "sexism" in the normal sense of the word but it's definitely reinforcing gender roles and is highly objectionable.

[Revolution starts with U]

Things I'd consider sexism against men are stuff like this:
http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/551783_3589084879357_1040395982_3253765_1710131095 _n.jpg
Because I saw this on my Facebook news feed and I was appalled, especially at all of the commenters agreeing with it . It reinforces gender roles, and nobody bothers to question it.
If it had been about "real women" needing to "get back in the kitchen" or something at least some people probably would have freaked out. Maybe it's not "sexism" in the normal sense of the word but it's definitely reinforcing gender roles and is highly objectionable.

Best point in the thread so far :thumbup1:

[Firebrand]

The ironic thing is that that film is pretty sexist in and of itself

[Counterreactionary]

Yes, men are ridiculed and laughed at, when they happen to show weakness or proves to be unsuccesful. But not only that. The entire ideology of feminism, is essentially misandric, because Feminism presumes guilt upon men and ignores male grievances in society!
But this, the feminists don't get. And just raising the issue, is frowned upon by closet female chauvinists as 'misogynist' and primitive. They even dismiss the data on it, when shown.

As the Youtuber Amazing Atheist said;
"Feminism is the idea that we can make both sexes equal, by solely focussing on the issues of one of them."

[Ele'ill]

Yes, men are ridiculed and laughed, when they show weakness or proves to be unsuccesful. But not only that. The entire ideology of feminism, is essentially misandric, because Feminism presumes guilt upon men and IGNORES male grievances in society!
But this, the feminists don't get. And just raising the issue, is frowned upon by closet female chauvinists as 'misogynist' and primitive. They even dismiss the data on it!

As the Youtuber Amazing Atheist said;
"Feminism is the idea that we can make both sexes equal, by solely focussing on the issues of one of them."

I seriously despise that parasitic, misandric world view.

Thanks for bumping this thread with troll nonsense you are so awesome

[Counterreactionary]

Thanks for bumping this thread with troll nonsense you are so awesome

Give me a break. There was no intended trolling in what I said, I merely stated a brief opinion. Maybe I was being a bit polemic and elaborated too little. But why do I have to be flamed for that? Oh, I guess you just disagree on a fundamental level and therefore you find me post to be even more loathsome, thanks for being so close-minded and self-righteous.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Give me a break. There was no intended trolling in what I said, I merely stated a brief opinion. Maybe I was being a bit polemic and elaborated too little. But why do I have to be flamed for that? Oh, I guess you just disagree on a fundamental level and therefore you find me post to be even more loathsome, thanks for being so close-minded and self-righteous.

Your argument is akin to somebody criticising a Socialist for wanting to make a society more egalitarian by focusing on the poor and ignoring the economic grievances of the rich.

You also generalised about EVERY feminist, which is nonsense.

[Luc]

Yes, men are ridiculed and laughed at, when they happen to show weakness or proves to be unsuccesful. But not only that. The entire ideology of feminism, is essentially misandric, because Feminism presumes guilt upon men and ignores male grievances in society!
But this, the feminists don't get. And just raising the issue, is frowned upon by closet female chauvinists as 'misogynist' and primitive. They even dismiss the data on it, when shown.

As the Youtuber Amazing Atheist said;
"Feminism is the idea that we can make both sexes equal, by solely focussing on the issues of one of them."


http://feministing.com/2012/11/19/teen-boys-also-risking-their-health-in-pursuit-of-unattainable-bodies/
http://everydayfeminism.com/2012/08/why-men-need-feminism-3/
http://everydayfeminism.com/2012/12/5-challenges-black-gay-men-face/
http://everydayfeminism.com/2012/11/6-ways-to-talk-about-male-violence-and-healthy-masculinity/

this is all i can pull up in 5mins i'd post more if i cared. point is ur arguement isnt very compelling

edit:

Feminist writer Jessica Valenti dedicated full chapter to men in Full Frontal Feminism, Chapter 10 Boys Do Cry
Feminist group Men of Strength Clubs http://www.mencanstoprape.org/The-Men-of-Strength-Club/

aswell there is much work on queer men which those who criticise feminism for "not listening to men" (in essence) never seem to be talking about

dont fall for their shit lines Counterreactionary, if u wish to live up to ur name investigate and think for yourself :)

[Crux]

http://feministing.com/2012/11/19/teen-boys-also-risking-their-health-in-pursuit-of-unattainable-bodies/
http://everydayfeminism.com/2012/08/why-men-need-feminism-3/
http://everydayfeminism.com/2012/12/5-challenges-black-gay-men-face/
http://everydayfeminism.com/2012/11/6-ways-to-talk-about-male-violence-and-healthy-masculinity/

this is all i can pull up in 5mins i'd post more if i cared. point is ur arguement isnt very compelling

edit:

Feminist writer Jessica Valenti dedicated full chapter to men in Full Frontal Feminism, Chapter 10 Boys Do Cry
Feminist group Men of Strength Clubs http://www.mencanstoprape.org/The-Men-of-Strength-Club/
I suspect it's because it is an uninformed strawman from someone who believes "the Amazing Atheist" is an authority on feminism. Feminism is "misandric"? Stop hanging with the crypto-reactionaries in the "Men's Rights Movement", who represents me as a white male about as well as the thinly veiled white supremacist position of the "reverse racism" knuckleheads. But do go ahead and call me misandric, why not "anti-White" and heterophobe while we're at it? They all feed from the same sewer of far right thought. Don't get fooled.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

Well, if someone on YouTube said it, it must be true! :rolleyes:

[Luís Henrique]

It's not *just* racism, it's also sexism, young men of color are seen as particularly threatening as men of color, as in, not just people of color but also as young men

In which case it is still sexism against women (who are deemed too weak or dumb or infantilised to be a threat).

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Who cares that Finland has conscription when Finland is not going to need it in the obviously foreseeable future, until that is the case it is only virtual conscription against men?

I wouldn't call wasting a whole year of your life cleaning the loos of army officials "virtual conscription".

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

Yes, men are ridiculed and laughed at, when they happen to show weakness or proves to be unsuccesful.

The oppressors are always held to stricter rules of conduct. When men are ridiculed when they show weakness, they are ridiculed because they are displaying "feminine" characteristics. Again, sexism against women victimising men.


But not only that. The entire ideology of feminism, is essentially misandric, because Feminism presumes guilt upon men and ignores male grievances in society!

Feminism is a huge bag, full of cats of many different colours and sizes.


But this, the feminists don't get. And just raising the issue, is frowned upon by closet female chauvinists as 'misogynist' and primitive. They even dismiss the data on it, when shown.

What data?

As repeatedly shown in this thread, all those gender issues that oppress men are dictated by patriarchy, by discrimination against women, not by a supposed matriarchy or discrimination against men.


"Feminism is the idea that we can make both sexes equal, by solely focussing on the issues of one of them."

Sexism isn't solely an issue of women.

**************

A few months ago, two men were brutally attacked by homophobic goons in São Paulo. Because one of them happened to put his arm around the shoulders of the other. The fact that the attacked men were not gay lovers, but straight father and straight son doesn't turn the event into an instance of anti-straight prejudice, or reversed homophobia, or homophobia against heterosexuals, or homosexism. It is still homophobia, bigotry against homosexual people, heterosexism, in this peculiar case making straight people victims.

Luís Henrique

[Counterreactionary]

Your argument is akin to somebody criticising a Socialist for wanting to make a society more egalitarian by focusing on the poor and ignoring the economic grievances of the rich.

Not really, because the male gender is not in all instances an oppressor, perpetrator og priviledged. When it comes to child custody cases, prison sentences, domestic violence (where the roles are 'reversed'), men are not in any way treated fairly.

Comparing the bourgeousie with the male gender, is a bit problematic. It's kinda like saying the male population is the main enemy (and should be absolished...?). And by assuming this gender to some kind of universal oppressor, it's a presumption of guilt on the gender.


You also generalised about EVERY feminist, which is nonsense.Yeah alright, my bad.


Well, if someone on YouTube said it, it must be true!

That's not what I think. He just brings up some valid points in many commentaries, often from a scientific angle. But I don't consider anyone all-knowing.


The oppressors are always held to stricter rules of conduct. When men are ridiculed when they show weakness, they are ridiculed because they are displaying "feminine" characteristics. Again, sexism against women victimising men.

I do think I can agree on this one.


As repeatedly shown in this thread, all those gender issues that oppress men are dictated by patriarchy, by discrimination against women, not by a supposed matriarchy or discrimination against men.I think it's a question of what cultural occurances we're looking at, and choose to include.
Sorry to be sceptic here. But how can society be inherently 'patriarchic', when women are offered half entrance fees, when women today are increasingly overrepresented in the education system, when women happen to dominant in the social life, when they're given the benefit of doubt and taken exclusively serious in certain court cases? When women's beauty and social status are above that of men's and men are presented on TV as dumb, abusive and/or useless fools, when people publically stating that women are smarter than men automatically gains waves of applause?
That may not be connected to the agenda of feminism. But I just think it's problematic to ignore the areas and cultural aspects where women happen to dominate at the expense (and stigma) of men - and often it seems to be morally outlawed discussing such matters, due to the feminine values that seem to have taken place ('The softer values'?). A 'hegemony', of some sort. Maybe something that stems from upper class women who has gained power in society's top.


I suspect it's because it is an uninformed strawman from someone who believes "the Amazing Atheist" is an authority on feminism. Feminism is "misandric"? Stop hanging with the crypto-reactionaries in the "Men's Rights Movement", who represents me as a white male about as well as the thinly veiled white supremacist position of the "reverse racism" knuckleheads.

I don't hang with those. I'm aware that (at least) large sections of the men's rights movement, wants to reverse much progressive legislation and women's entrance to the workplace, believes in conservative family structures etc.
People who point out injustice towards men doesn't have to be far-right, or on the right at all. It could i.e. be gender researchers who criticize feminism, from a pro-equality stance.
AA is not an MRA. He simply just advocates against the exclusive focus on the female gender, from a rather middle-ground perspective. A lot of people outside the right wing, and also on the left are rather tired of modern day feminism because they don't feel it relates to their reality at all or adresses the actual problems.

[Crux]

If you don't, then why is it that literally every single talking point you've brought up is straight of the "MR" textbook? "Misandry" is pretty much a dead give away. So maybe you don't subscribe to "A Voice for Men" but get this stuff second-hand. Makes no difference as far as I am concerned. As for AA and sexism, his totally uninformed videos about feminism ensured that I stopped watching his mildly amusing channel. This on the other hand (http://manboobz.com/2012/02/08/theamazingatheists-misogynist-meltdown/) ensures I will never return. Fuck that guy. And indeed people who point out injustices towards men don't have to be far right. (http://jezebel.com/5967923/fuck-you-mras) Anti-feminists on the other hand have their natural home among the far right. Misandry is just as much a phony theory as "reverse racism".


when they're given the benefit of doubt and taken exclusively serious in certain court cases?
Please do tell me, which court cases?
And none of your examples prove any kind of systemic shift in society. How can there not be a patriarchy when oppressive gender roles are still very much real? You say that TV portray men as "dumb" again I don't think that you (and whatever source you're using) could have come to that conclusion without extreme cherry-picking.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

What I want to know is why does a leftist forum have to keep going over issues like this? Why do some leftist men sound like their right-wing brethren when it comes to feminism? As a leftist woman, it's depressing.

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

He simply just advocates against the exclusive focus on the female gender, from a rather middle-ground perspective.
Ah, the old argument to moderation fallacy. Try again.


A lot of people outside the right wing, and also on the left are rather tired of modern day feminism because they don't feel it relates to their reality at all or adresses the actual problems.
In my experience, anti-feminists argue against feminism based on what they imagine it is rather than what it actually is. Not to forget, feminism is made up of many different tendencies, from bourgeois to revolutionary, and anti-feminists rant against feminism as a whole. The very idea that women have historically been oppressed as women is anathema to anti-feminists.

[Luís Henrique]

But how can society be inherently 'patriarchic', when women are offered half entrance fees,

Because they are "weaker" and must be protected.


when women today are increasingly overrepresented in the education system,

Because jobs in the educational system pay less than jobs elsewhere (or is it that jobs in education pay such shoddy wages because women are increasingly overrepresented in it?)


when women happen to dominant in the social life,

Where? How? I really have no idea of what you are talking about.


when they're given the benefit of doubt and taken exclusively serious in certain court cases?

I don't think this is the rule at all; and in the cases it occurs it is almost always because the male contender is underprivileged for other reasons.


When women's beauty and social status are above that of men's

I don't see that at all. Beauty, of course, is entirely subjective; I find women in average much more beautiful than men, but that is quite certainly because I'm a straight man - if I were a woman, or a gay man, I would probably think the opposite. And anyways "beauty" has very little weight when it comes to the pecking order in our societies. The social status of men, of course, is always above that of women, other things being equal.


and men are presented on TV as dumb, abusive and/or useless fools,

Where?


when people publically stating that women are smarter than men automatically gains waves of applause?

Again because it is mostly intended as a joke, and/or like treating them as spoiled children?


That may not be connected to the agenda of feminism.

Of course it isn't. It is male chauvinism for the most part, and irrelevancy elsewhere.


But I just think it's problematic to ignore the areas and cultural aspects where women happen to dominate at the expense (and stigma) of men

Which areas? Seriously, where are women "dominant" and men stigmatised? At home care, perhaps? But that's the most downtrodden of areas! In education? But besides that being weirdly underpaid, most dominant figures in education are male. Yes, most teachers are women. Most school principals? Not so much. Most city education secretaries? I doubt it. Most state education secretaries? Hell no. Most published theorists in the area? Quite certainly not.

Darnit, even in stereotypically "feminine" areas men are quite obviously dominant. Most cooks are probably female. Most chefs are quite certainly male.


- and often it seems to be morally outlawed discussing such matters, due to the feminine values that seem to have taken place ('The softer values'?).

It isn't morally outlawed, it is just somewhat dumb, as it runs so obviously against all evidence that we are tempted to go, "err... what planet were you saying you are from again?"


A 'hegemony', of some sort. Maybe something that stems from upper class women who has gained power in society's top.

Oh please. How many CEOs of capitalist ventures are female?

Yes, there has been a considerable reduction of the inequality between men and women (thanks, of course, to the feminist movement that you were maligning), but it is far from being eliminated (even, and perhaps less so, in the upper class), much less reverted.


I don't hang with those. I'm aware that (at least) large sections of the men's rights movement, wants to reverse much progressive legislation and women's entrance to the workplace, believes in conservative family structures etc.

I don't think these are merely "large sections" of "men's rights movement"; I think reversing progressive legislation is the core goal of any "men's right movement" that isn't merely in jest.


People who point out injustice towards men doesn't have to be far-right, or on the right at all. It could i.e. be gender researchers who criticize feminism, from a pro-equality stance.

For instance... who?


AA is not an MRA. He simply just advocates against the exclusive focus on the female gender, from a rather middle-ground perspective.

From the ground of sheer ignorance, I would say.


A lot of people outside the right wing, and also on the left are rather tired of modern day feminism because they don't feel it relates to their reality at all or adresses the actual problems.

That maybe. After all, a lot of people in the working class are tired of the modern left because they feel - and rightly so - that it doesn't relate to their reality or addresses their actual problems. What this doesn't mean is that inequality between genders has been reversed, or that we are living under the dictatorship of the proletariat.

But the remedy for this is serious discussion of the failings and blunders of the feminist movement - which requires careful analysis and the ability to distinguish the various currents and subcurrents within the feminist movement, not ignorant ranting, dismissal of evidence, and lumping all feminists into one single entity regardless of the wide and deep differences and divides among them.

Luís Henrique

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Not really, because the male gender is not in all instances an oppressor, perpetrator og priviledged. When it comes to child custody cases, prison sentences, domestic violence (where the roles are 'reversed'), men are not in any way treated fairly.

Comparing the bourgeousie with the male gender, is a bit problematic. It's kinda like saying the male population is the main enemy (and should be absolished...?). And by assuming this gender to some kind of universal oppressor, it's a presumption of guilt on the gender.



In terms of child custody, I think the system is the way it is because men don't carry children in their wombs for 9 months, and more often than not it's maternity leave taken, rather than paternity leave.

I'm not sure there's any evidence that men are treated unfairly in prison sentences, nor in domestic violence cases.

For a woman who loses out a job to a man, and/or sees her male colleagues earning more than her for doing the same job, and to see them chastising her for being an 'unreliable' employee simply because when they want to have children it's the woman who has to stop working, the man probably does become the enemy. For a woman who can't go out on a night out without her bum being pinched by sleezy perverts, who can't walk between two bars without being cat-called, leered at and told 'she's asking for it' or something similar, probably men do seem the enemy. For a woman who, when raped, is not asked about the attacker, but about how much she'd had to drink, about what she was wearing, about whether she fancied him, by a male police officer, men probably do seem the enemy.

Sometimes as men we don't understand this because we don't face the daily oppression that women do. But just because we don't face it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

It's nothing to do with individual guilt on the part of a man, much like you can't be 'guilty' of being part of the bourgeoisie. It's just how things are, and this needs to change.

With regards to prison sentences and domestic violence, i'm really not sure you're onto a winner there. For example, only in 1994 in England was marital rape criminalised!

[Danielle Ni Dhighe]

In terms of child custody, I think the system is the way it is because men don't carry children in their wombs for 9 months, and more often than not it's maternity leave taken, rather than paternity leave.
Also, the misogynistic ideology that posts that women are natural caregivers necessarily says the opposite about men. If men are disadvantaged in custody disputes, it's not because of women, it's because of misogyny.

[GerrardWinstanley]

I'm not convinced that men are victims of systemic oppression (the very concept makes no sense to me), but that doesn't mean that many people aren't still put at a huge disadvantage for being male in some areas of life and some feminists (gendered narratives on domestic violence) share part of the blame.

Men make up 90% of the prison population and are the vast majority of people who die in combat (even today with no all-male conscription), most victims of homophobia and homophobic violence are male (many anti-gay sex laws apply exclusively to men for example). Violence against men in general arouses less indignation than violence against women.

Most domestic violence charities (Women's Aid and Refuge being the biggest in the UK) and even some charities to help survivors of CSA do not offer any services to men and continue to erroneously define domestic violence and rape as something exclusively committed by men against women and girls (which is intolerable in my opinion) and many of those that do do not advise men not to defend themselves. I don't see how this can be blamed on patriarchy.

I just think it's worth thinking about.