Masculism

[Saith]

Actually yeah, my bad.

 

[Dannichu]

The 'Men are abused too' page also says:

Your rights are the same as an abused woman’s. The police will take you seriously and arrest your abuser if there is evidence of assault. He or she can be prosecuted. Other statutory services must also provide services regardless of gender.

Accepting that you are being abused is an important step. The next is to break your silence and isolation by contacting an appropriate organisation or speaking to someone you trust.

It notes on the page header that Refuge is an organisation "For women and children" and while it offers some advice for men who are being abused, it acknowleges that a man in an abusive relationship should find an organization that deals specifically with male domestic abuse.
It's like going to the website of a charity that raises money for research for lung cancer and complaining that they're doing nothing to help people with skin cancer. They are different social problems requiring different solutions, and caring about one doesn't mean you don't care about the other.

 

[Saith]

It notes on the page header that Refuge is an organisation "For women and children"

But that's exactly my problem with it. Here's an incredibly well-funded, well-marketed, stupidly wealthy organisation, and it doesn't do fuck all for men. At all. Instead it recommends you head to the website of an organisation that looks like it's ran by one guy who read 'website making for dummies', and figured he'd better put those skills to good use.

It's like going to the website of a charity that raises money for research for lung cancer and complaining that they're doing nothing to help people with skin cancer.

Except it's more like going to Tenovus, and finding out that they don't help with prostate cancer. (They do help with it, it was just the only cancer charity that came to mind.)

They are different social problems requiring different solutions, and caring about one doesn't mean you don't care about the other.

I don't understand this. Domestic abuse is domestic abuse, no?

 

[goldenquagsire]

I love it. You take the fact that men are expected by society to kill and die for women as soon as a threat occurs, and you spin it around to make it seem like the women are being oppressed.

I think you're misunderstanding her point. She's explaining that the justification behind the male-only draft is rooted in unfair gender expectations which is exactly the thing being argued against.

But that's exactly my problem with it. Here's an incredibly well-funded, well-marketed, stupidly wealthy organisation, and it doesn't do fuck all for men. At all.

Domestic abuse by men towards women and children is a far more widespread problem than vice versa. That's not to say that domestic abuse towards men is any less wrong, but is it really surprising that there's more resources and support targeted at the group which is more at risk of violence?

Instead it recommends you head to the website of an organisation that looks like it's ran by one guy who read 'website making for dummies', and figured he'd better put those skills to good use.

Frankly, you're just being rude now. I'm not a professional web designer but Mankind's website looks like it does the job it needs to do. They're a support group for male victims of abuse, not a goddamn company that needs a flashy website to attract customers.

Perhaps they're spending the money they save from not employing a graphic designer on the actual services they're supposed to provide?

 

[Saith]

I think you're misunderstanding her point. She's explaining that the justification behind the male-only draft is rooted in unfair gender expectations which is exactly the thing being argued against.

Maybe so, but her post seemed like she was saying that it's unfair that women aren't expected to die, rather than the other way 'round.

Domestic abuse by men towards women and children is a far more widespread problem than vice versa. That's not to say that domestic abuse towards men is any less wrong, but is it really surprising that there's more resources and support targeted at the group which is more at risk of violence?

This should maybe open your eyes.
You should probably realise that most men wouldn't want to seem weak by admitting to abuse etc.
Also note the huge disparity between the number of centers for men (60) and centers for women (7,500).
Domestic abuse has never been a gender-issue. It's only become that way in recent years- And that's because male abuse has been swept under the rug. It's out of sight, so it's out of mind.

Frankly, you're just being rude now. I'm not a professional web designer but Mankind's website looks like it does the job it needs to do. They're a support group for male victims of abuse, not a goddamn company that needs a flashy website to attract customers.

Perhaps they're spending the money they save from not employing a graphic designer on the actual services they're supposed to provide?

But that's my point. Mankind are doing their damnedest with the tiny amount of resources at their disposal. I'm not shitting on the charity, I'm saying that compared to, for example, Refuge, they have nothing. And it shows just by looking at their webpage.

 

[Hiikaru]

I love it. You take the fact that men are expected by society to kill and die for women as soon as a threat occurs, and you spin it around to make it seem like the women are being oppressed.

I kind of understand where you're coming from here, but I'm pretty sure you're confused. Remember when black people weren't allowed to die for their country? If someone had said back then:

I love it. You take the fact that white men are expected by society to kill and die for black people as soon as a threat occurs, and you spin it around to make it seem like the black people are being oppressed.

Wouldn't you find that kind of strange?

Anyway, what do you propose as a solution to that? Like, do you want girls to get drafted, too? Do you want the draft to switch to girls instead of guys? Do you want the draft to just go away and hope we never need it? What do you think would be the best thing?

 

[Saith]

Wouldn't you find that kind of strange?

Nope?
The white people would still be the ones expected and sometimes forced to die. The black people would be benefiting from it. In that one area, yes, white people would be being oppressed.

Look, when Russia reveals their army of robotic Vladimir Putins and indestructible Rasputin ninjas, I don't want someone giving me a bloody white-feather for not joining up, 'kay? I mean, I am joining the military in a year or two's time, but that's my own choice and not due to expectations placed on me.

Anyway, what do you propose as a solution to that? Like, do you want girls to get drafted, too? Do you want the draft to switch to girls instead of guys? Do you want the draft to just go away and hope we never need it? What do you think would be the best thing?

Well I have no idea whether there's conscription in the uk anymore, so yeah.
My opinion on women in the military is this: Either get rid of them entirely, or hold them to exactly the same standard as men.

As far as I can tell, entry requirements are incredibly lax for women. If I were female, I could enter the military right now. I mean bloody hell, they can do their press-ups on their knees*.
Added to this, women are never put on the frontlines! You have all these generals and captains etc who do not deserve any respect from their soldiers due to never having a gun pointed at them.
Added to this that a woman isn't punished at all for getting pregnant after being informed that they'll be sent to a warzone, and are instead allowed out of active duty.
Even problems with childcare can get women out of action.

I know someone's thinking 'well women are naturally physically inferior than men' or 'pregnancy's a big deal! There should be exceptions made for things like that!' and I really don't understand it.
If women are held to the same entry requirements as men, then only the sufficiently strong women will get in. And getting pregnant, in my opinion, should be held to the same standards as though someone shot themself in the foot.

As for Conscription: Draft for both genders or draft for none. I'd personally prefer the first, but whatever.

*May or may not be an exaggeration.

 

[Aletheia]

As for Conscription: Draft for both genders or draft for none. I'd personally prefer the first, but whatever.

At this point it's still illegal for a woman to be in a fighting position.

(how's that for gender equality?)

 

[Dannichu]

And getting pregnant, in my opinion, should be held to the same standards as though someone shot themself in the foot.

Um. I don't even know where to start with this, so I won't.

As for Conscription: Draft for both genders or draft for none.

And any good feminist would agree with you. Women might have an advantage by not being expected/allowed to go out and get shot, but it all stems from a "women are weak and unsuited for fighting" attitude which feminists fight against. I have no idea where you have this idea that feminists are for gender equality except for things where men are disadvantaged, but it's not true. Obviously there are some women (maybe even some who call themselves feminists) who agree with "women and children first" and other ways of thinking, but they're just as silly as men who say "women should make me a sandwich" (well, not quite as silly).

 

[Saith]

Um. I don't even know where to start with this, so I won't.

Yeah, it sounds bad so I should probably take it back, huh?
My point was that women are given so many extra ways to 'escape' the fighting. I'm not saying they'd use it of course.

And any good feminist would agree with you. Women might have an advantage by not being expected/allowed to go out and get shot, but it all stems from a "women are weak and unsuited for fighting" attitude which feminists fight against. I have no idea where you have this idea that feminists are for gender equality except for things where men are disadvantaged, but it's not true. Obviously there are some women (maybe even some who call themselves feminists) who agree with "women and children first" and other ways of thinking, but they're just as silly as men who say "women should make me a sandwich" (well, not quite as silly).

I, uh, never said that feminists were against equality?
Sorry if it seemed that way. x.x;
I said that the general public, the media and 'radical feminists' are. Well, I didn't say that, either, but that's what I think.
I obviously agree with feminism because I agree with gender-equality. I don't agree with 'feminists' who believe that women are superior, I don't agree with society and the media when they portray men as evil, disgusting, abusive paedophiles. I don't agree with people who think that just because women are, on average, physically weaker than men, they should get allowances that men do not.

Basically, I agree with equal rights and with equal responsibilities.

 

[goldenquagsire]

This should maybe open your eyes.

It's all very well highlighting domestic abuse versus men (and that's not to deny that it happens, or that it's every bit as bad for men as it is for women), but read between the lines a little: 40% of domestic violence victims are men, but 60% are women.

You should probably realise that most men wouldn't want to seem weak by admitting to abuse etc.

That's a gender issue. It's about prescriptive gender roles stating what men can and can't do, and that's exactly the sort of thing that most feminists are arguing against.

Also note the huge disparity between the number of centers for men (60) and centers for women (7,500).

Then we should encourage the building for more centres for men! You seem to be framing this as a zero sum game in which support for female victims equals dismissal of male victims. That's simply not the case. Why not support both causes?

Nope?
The white people would still be the ones expected and sometimes forced to die. The black people would be benefiting from it. In that one area, yes, white people would be being oppressed.

I don't think you really understand what oppression means. The 'advantage' of not having to be drafted doesn't count for much when you have limited civil rights and face routine abuse.

 

[Saith]

It's all very well highlighting domestic abuse versus men (and that's not to deny that it happens, or that it's every bit as bad for men as it is for women), but read between the lines a little: 40% of domestic violence victims are men, but 60% are women.

And yet the aid for men is incredibly disproportionately less than aid for women. There's a difference of 20%, and yet the percentage of shelters that cater to men is 0.8% of the total. That, in my opinion, is disgusting.

That's a gender issue. It's about prescriptive gender roles stating what men can and can't do, and that's exactly the sort of thing that most feminists are arguing against.

Then we should encourage the building for more centres for men! You seem to be framing this as a zero sum game in which support for female victims equals dismissal of male victims. That's simply not the case. Why not support both causes?

But I'm not arguing against feminism, and it seems to be everybody else who think that arguing for men's rights means arguing against women's rights. Of course I'd love it if a high-profile charity would cater to both genders equally. That would be great.
But see, almost nobody gives a shit about abused men. It's not marketable. No one cares if you see a guy get slapped by his girlfriend in a pub. He's a man! He can take it! If he hits her back, though, well all her unpaid bodyguards will beat that chap senseless.
Nobody donates to men's charities, because it's not seen as an equivalent issue. Because suggesting that it is, is equivalent to suggesting that women being abused is less of an issue. At least in society's eyes.

I don't think you really understand what oppression means. The 'advantage' of not having to be drafted doesn't count for much when you have limited civil rights and face routine abuse.

Being forced to die is objectively worse than being forced to not die.

 

[goldenquagsire]

And yet the aid for men is incredibly disproportionately less than aid for women. There's a difference of 20%, and yet the percentage of shelters that cater to men is 0.8% of the total. That, in my opinion, is disgusting.

Then support an increase in funding for male abuse victims. Don't be disparaging of support for female abuse victims.

Nobody donates to men's charities, because it's not seen as an equivalent issue. Because suggesting that it is, is equivalent to suggesting that women being abused is less of an issue. At least in society's eyes.

But it's not an equivalent issue. Domestic abuse of men simply doesn't occur to the same degree that it does to women.

Being forced to die is objectively worse than being forced to not die.

But that's just one aspect in which white people had it worse than black people in this scenario. Sure, black people couldn't be forced into the army. They also couldn't vote, were subject to state-sanction discrimination at every level of society, suffered routine verbal and physical abuse and were even lynched.

This is the problem with your arguments, and with the concept of masculism in general. You're quibbling about a few disadvantages that privileged groups encounter while ignoring the wider picture. Sure, some men experience domestic abuse. However, they also enjoy an innate privilege in society. Men don't have to suffer discrimination across the board like women do. They don't have to fear rape (and the lack of sympathy towards rape victims) anywhere near the degree that women do. They don't have to suffer patronising attitudes and an unbalanced representation in the media.

 

[Saith]

Then support an increase in funding for male abuse victims. Don't be disparaging of support for female abuse victims.

As long as charities are allowed to discriminate against genders, it's going to be either or.

But it's not an equivalent issue. Domestic abuse of men simply doesn't occur to the same degree that it does to women.

Look, I'd get what you're saying if it was something like 95% to 5% or something like that. But it's not. It's just 10% away from being an equal spread. It may not be a completely equal amount, but the numbers are so close as to make society's view on male abuse horrendous. It's not an equivalent issue, no. It's close enough to warrant the same amount of seriousness, though.

But that's just one aspect in which white people had it worse than black people in this scenario. Sure, black people couldn't be forced into the army. They also couldn't vote, were subject to state-sanction discrimination at every level of society, suffered routine verbal and physical abuse and were even lynched.

But, and here's the important bit, I never said that white people had it worse than black people. I was only on about the draft. White people had it worse when it came to the draft, and the fact that blacks weren't allowed to sign up was completely overshadowed by the fact that whites were forced to sign up. Of course blacks were discriminated against in every other scenario, but in this they were not.

I'd also like to say that equating female oppression to racial oppression is pretty damn insulting. Women have never been lynched for being women. They've never been beaten for being women. Hell, voting was only a gender issue for a tiny amount of time. Before I think 1918, it was a completely class-related issue. And ten years later, it was an age-related thing.

This is the problem with your arguments, and with the concept of masculism in general. You're quibbling about a few disadvantages that privileged groups encounter while ignoring the wider picture. Sure, some men experience domestic abuse. However, they also enjoy an innate privilege in society. Men don't have to suffer discrimination across the board like women do. They don't have to fear rape (and the lack of sympathy towards rape victims) anywhere near the degree that women do. They don't have to suffer patronising attitudes and an unbalanced representation in the media.

Men cannot hold their children's hands without looking like paedophiles. Men cannot love, they're only in it for the sex. Men are evil, abusive, disgusting, terrible, war-mongering, violent, despicable, disease-ridden, racist, sexist, homophobic, expendable, unnecessary sons of bitches.
But that's not prejudice, that's fact. The newspapers say so. The TV says so. The media claims that men do not exist unless unless they've done something bad.
You claim it's 'quibbling', you claim they're simply a 'few disadvantages'. But bloody hell, they're huge disadvantages.

Off the top of my head:

• Conscription- Women are oppressed by being forced to say safe and sound when the men give their lives to protect them.
• Fatherhood- It means fuck all nowadays. Women have a monopoly on fertility. A man can only have children if he has permission to have children. A woman can have children if she has permission to have sex. And then she can get the daddy to pay for it all.
• 'Men' only exist in the media if they've done something bad. When men are killed in Iraq, they're just soldiers. They're not men, they're soldiers, and they're killed by 'insurgents', not men. When a woman is kidnapped in Afghanistan, she's kidnapped by men.

 

[shy ♡]

I'd also like to say that equating female oppression to racial oppression is pretty damn insulting. Women have never been lynched for being women. They've never been beaten for being women. Hell, voting was only a gender issue for a tiny amount of time. Before I think 1918, it was a completely class-related issue. And ten years later, it was an age-related thing.

Are you fucking serious.

I can't even form a legitimate response. Every post you've made has been somewhat infuriating, honestly, but this is really a new low.

 

[Aobaru]

If feminism fights for equal rights for women, I don't see any problem with a concurrent movement fighting for equal rights for men, no matter how many specific problems each of them have to fight against.

Or you could look at them as two sides of the same coin of gender equality.

 

[goldenquagsire]

As long as charities are allowed to discriminate against genders, it's going to be either or.

They're not 'discriminating'. You wouldn't demand that a prostate cancer charity also gives funding towards breast cancer research, would you?

Look, I'd get what you're saying if it was something like 95% to 5% or something like that. But it's not. It's just 10% away from being an equal spread. It may not be a completely equal amount, but the numbers are so close as to make society's view on male abuse horrendous. It's not an equivalent issue, no. It's close enough to warrant the same amount of seriousness, though.

Then focus on raising awareness of male abuse victims rather than trying to downplay the importance of female abuse victims. I've said it before, this isn't a zero sum game where only one cause is important.

But, and here's the important bit, I never said that white people had it worse than black people. I was only on about the draft. White people had it worse when it came to the draft, and the fact that blacks weren't allowed to sign up was completely overshadowed by the fact that whites were forced to sign up. Of course blacks were discriminated against in every other scenario, but in this they were not.

You said it qualified as 'oppression of white people'. You're misunderstanding what the term means. Systematic oppression of a group does not equate to a disadvantage in one area as a result of prejudiced beliefs being followed to their logical extreme.

I'd also like to say that equating female oppression to racial oppression is pretty damn insulting. Women have never been lynched for being women.

I'd say that equating a minor disadvantage against white people with racial oppression is pretty damn insulting. Also,

They've never been beaten for being women.

Ho hum.

Hell, voting was only a gender issue for a tiny amount of time. Before I think 1918, it was a completely class-related issue. And ten years later, it was an age-related thing.

It wasn't 'just' a class-related issue before 1918. No woman could vote before that date regardless of class. And afterwards, the age-disparity was still a gender issue because women were being treated differently. Also, an 'issue' can be related to multiple forms of oppression.

Men cannot hold their children's hands without looking like paedophiles. Men cannot love, they're only in it for the sex. Men are evil, abusive, disgusting, terrible, war-mongering, violent, despicable, disease-ridden, racist, sexist, homophobic, expendable, unnecessary sons of bitches.
But that's not prejudice, that's fact. The newspapers say so. The TV says so. The media claims that men do not exist unless unless they've done something bad.

Where the hell are you getting that from?

Conscription- Women are oppressed by being forced to say safe and sound when the men give their lives to protect them.

As has been explained multiple times in this thread, many feminists oppose conscription. Also, it's been abolished in most developed countries (I seem to recall that Germany abolished their program relatively recently, even).

Fatherhood- It means fuck all nowadays. Women have a monopoly on fertility. A man can only have children if he has permission to have children. A woman can have children if she has permission to have sex. And then she can get the daddy to pay for it all.

People in the real world just don't behave like that. Evil man-hating women living off alimony are really much rarer than you'd think, and they're individual dickheads rather than part of some gigantic anti-male conspiracy.

 

[Butterfree]

I'm not really sure what the argument here is. Doesn't everyone agree that it would be better if the genders were equal in all respects? Yes, the genders are treated differently in various ways in the society of today. In some cases these differences are objectively advantageous for men and in some cases they're objectively advantageous for women. I don't think anyone here is honestly trying to dispute that, or that obviously things should not be this way and ought to be changed.

Feminism is generally not about people wanting to eliminate advantages for men; it's about eliminating that gender disparity as a whole, because all of it is objectionable and stems from the basic "women are different from men" attitude that feminists are fundamentally fighting against. It happens to be called "feminism" because on the whole women are historically more often the ones at a disadvantage, but to create "masculism" is to actually split the cause into separate issues, which is immensely destructive to the cause as a whole because that very act is enforcing the disparity; it's saying "these are men's problems, these are women's problems" instead of "this fundamental issue is a people problem that hurts everyone". It shouldn't be about whether it's discrimination "against men" or "against women"; it should be about the fact that it's discrimination by gender, period.

Men are more hurt by the draft than women are, yes. This does not mean that it's not a feminist issue and needs a special "masculism" movement to tackle it. It's a feminist issue because there is an unfair gender disparity; which gender happens to benefit from it does not change that.

Incidentally, I personally think domestic abuse charities have no real reason to be segregated by gender at all. While something like lung cancer and skin cancer are sensibly different things that call for different research and different uses of the charity's money and so on, it seems to me that domestic abuse ought to call for more or less the same measures whether the battered are men or women. Is there some particular reason the same shelter can't serve both male and female abuse victims? Please enlighten me if I'm wrong.

 

[Saith]

They're not 'discriminating'. You wouldn't demand that a prostate cancer charity also gives funding towards breast cancer research, would you?[/quote
No, but I'd demand that a charity for pets give equal resources towards protecting both cats and dogs.

Then focus on raising awareness of male abuse victims rather than trying to downplay the importance of female abuse victims. I've said it before, this isn't a zero sum game where only one cause is important.

I've said nothing about downplaying female abuse, and this is exactly what happens whenever male abuse happens. Raising awareness of male abuse is the equivalent in most people's eyes as downplaying female abuse. This is because male abuse, to the average person, happens to one guy every five years when the stars align at just the right angle.
I, personally, think charities such as Refuge should cater for men just as much as women.

You said it qualified as 'oppression of white people'. You're misunderstanding what the term means. Systematic oppression of a group does not equate to a disadvantage in one area as a result of prejudiced beliefs being followed to their logical extreme.

Okay, I used the wrong word. My bad.
My point still stands that when it came to the draft (which is not a minor issue), white men were being discriminated against.

Ho hum.

That article is about people being stoned to death for adultery, not for being women. I counted three women being stoned to death and three men. Ho hum.

It wasn't 'just' a class-related issue before 1918. No woman could vote before that date regardless of class. And afterwards, the age-disparity was still a gender issue because women were being treated differently. Also, an 'issue' can be related to multiple forms of oppression.

But it was a class-related issue. Only men who owned land were able to vote. Because they were rich, not because they were men. The sexism came in because each family were allowed one vote, and as the father was the head of the household, that vote was his.

Where the hell are you getting that from?

Partially that video link I've posted three times now which nobody's decided to watch. Partially from flicking on the TV. Turn on Eastenders? Men are being dicks. Corrie? Men are dicks. The Bill? Men were paedophiliac dicks. Or expendable. Definitely expendable. Most movies, you never get to learn a guy's name before he's shot in the face. Or kicked in the balls. You know, because genital pain is hilarious when it's focused on men!

As has been explained multiple times in this thread, many feminists oppose conscription. Also, it's been abolished in most developed countries (I seem to recall that Germany abolished their program relatively recently, even).

And as I've explained many times in this thread, I'm not against feminism. I'm against discrimination towards men, and for gender equality. If that makes me a 'masculinist' then fine. If it makes me a feminist, also fine.

People in the real world just don't behave like that. Evil man-hating women living off alimony are really much rarer than you'd think, and they're individual dickheads rather than part of some gigantic anti-male conspiracy.

Go to Cardiff. There are acres upon acres upon acres of council flats crammed full of single mothers who are doing just that.

I can't even form a legitimate response. Every post you've made has been somewhat infuriating, honestly, but this is really a new low.

Cool beans. (Y)

 

[Dannichu]

'Men' only exist in the media if they've done something bad. When men are killed in Iraq, they're just soldiers. They're not men, they're soldiers, and they're killed by 'insurgents', not men. When a woman is kidnapped in Afghanistan, she's kidnapped by men.

And when women are in Iraq at all, they're women. Not 'soldiers'.

I'd love to know what kind of media you watch. Because nearly every TV show I watch (regardless of genre) has a male main character, 95% of science shows I see are presented by men, if a comedy panel show has a single woman in an episode it's unusual, if there's a politician being interviewed on the news you can almost guarantee they'll be male and any sport that gets covered will be entirely male-centric. And that's just off the top of my head.