Masculism

[goldenquagsire]

Jo Brand, on the other hand, is not funny. At least, not to me.

Your rampant misogyny aside, can I just say that you have horrible taste? Jo Brand is both hilarious and also a breath of fresh air, being an older woman who regularly appears on TV. She's also a local celebrity, but that's beyond the point.

I can almost guarantee that any refuse collector, any sewage worker, any builder or any street cleaner will be male too.
There might be a 'glass ceiling', but there's certainly a 'glass cellar'.

Don't you think that might be a feminist issue as well? If a woman tried to become one of those professions, she would face as much problems to do with gender expectations as she would trying to break into high-paying jobs.

Netball is bloody boring. It's like basketball but crap. Nobody wants to watch it.

You know, there is such a thing as women's football. It's the same damn sport, but with female players. It's nothing to do with how interesting 'women's sports' are, it's all about the fact that no-one considers women's pursuits to be worthwhile.

You mean those witch trials where little girls would just point at whoever, and those people would be tried for witchery? Those trials? The trials that were basically an antiquated version of Mean Girls, but scarier?

As far as I recall, men were tried in those trials, too. Not to the same extent, of course (The Salem witch trials had 50-odd women, 7 men). On the other hand, a higher percentage of the men were found guilty of the women, so there is that. (About 50% for the women, about 75% for the men).

The Crucible might be a brilliant play but don't let it colour your impression of witchhunting. Throughout the middle ages, most witch trials were led by communities, not 'little girls', against convenient scapegoats. Women were inordinately victims of witch hunts, especially older single women, because they had little power in society.

How often have you seen a rally for a prostate cancer fund?

Well, Movember is a pretty big international event which raises awareness of men's health issues (prostate cancer especially).

Is there an Office for Men's Health?

Well, I don't know how it works in the US but the Department of Health in the UK is gender-neutral.

When a man is raped by a woman, is he usually taken seriously by the masses?

And many feminists want to change this! It's as much to do with gender stereotyping and sexism as anything.

Is there a fertility control product out on the market for men?

Yes?

(and, for the record, Frankie Boyle's 'gimmick' is "And then I kicked a pregnant black woman!!! I am un-PC and therefore funny!!!")

Frankie Boyle sometimes made good points wrapped in offensiveness (I remember one joke he made about how the media almost completely ignores the local death toll in places like Afghanistan but goes apeshit over any British deaths), especially when he was on Mock the Week. But then he really got a bit full of himself and just started being offensive for the sake of fightan tha man. It's one thing to call Rebecca Adlington ugly; at least it's something of a fair fight and he was being more childish than anything. What he said about Harvey Price was utterly tasteless, especially since the guy couldn't fight back.

That, and Tramadol Nights was just unfunny. The Knight Rider sketch might have been funny for three minutes (moreso if he'd done it thirty years ago), dragging it out so long was mind-bogglingly boring.

 

[Eloi]

Here's the issue I have with this viewpoint, it is a one-sided viewpoint. It sees only the plight it wants to see.

Well, no, it sees the plights that are the most prominent and need to be assessed...

How often have you seen a rally for a prostate cancer fund? How often have you seen a product that says it helps out prostate cancer research?

(http://www.pcf.org/site/c.leJRIROrEpH/b.5699537/k.BEF4/Home.htm, http://www.prostatecancerclimb.org/, http://urology.jhu.edu/newsletter/prostate_cancer72.php)

Feminism-at-large can't help that the mass media thinks that women are the only ones who need help, we are actually battling that notion, its a shared goal, but its kind of hard to protest/complain at something that is altruistic as a fundraiser for cancer. :/

Is there an Office for Men's Health?

http://www.linkedin.com/answers/government-non-profit/government-policy/GOV_GPO/1821-5413841

When a man is raped by a woman, is he usually taken seriously by the masses?

I take it very, very seriously. Very. I have this bookmarked though they haven't updated very much recently (http://toysoldier.wordpress.com/)

When a man is in divorce court, does he normally get equal consideration for custody?

Any gender bias in courts is against feminist goals.

When a man is accused of rape, does he normally get due process of law or is he normally considered guilty before proven innocent?

I'd say that's a big problem with the law at large, but I digress.

Is there a fertility control product out on the market for men?

Its a work in progress. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Male_contraceptive)

Is education in general doing its part for the boys in the system?

The education system sucks in the general. :[

These are disadvantages that only men experience.

Yes, but feminists are sharing mutual goals. But the point is, those issues aren't as to-the-fore right now. A lot of that is because of the sexist 'women are speshul and need to be protected' BS that feminists like myself are P.O.'d at as much as you are. We have a common goal of gender equality, but it still stands that men have more economic and social clout (just look at your presidents, fortune 500, wages, congress, or governors for a demonstration).

I admit that the wage disparity is still a major issue, but women are quickly catching up.

We've been at it for...longer than my mom's been alive at least, and we still don't have it. So if by 'quickly' you mean 'a few lifetimes' to get a few percentage points closer, than yeah.

The idea that the only way to promote gender equality

Absolutes are not usually a good thing. I never said it was the "only" one, but it is the biggest one.

is through the 'feminist' agenda is immensely narrow minded. There are many issues that do not affect women. The women of the feminist movement did nothing to make sure these issues were equalized. This is why masculism now exists, men feel disadvantaged in ways that women aren't being disadvantaged.

In addition, this has been sold. If the slogan said 'Girls are stupid, throw rocks at them!', it would be universally hated. Both men and women would be rallying against it.

Okay. I think I need to tell you something that a lot of masculists don't understand and that is: men are not an oppressed minority. I'm sorry, but you aren't. Yes, your issues are important, but you don't need us to raise awareness for them, because everyone already consider's them important, because you are men, men are taken seriously, as are their problems, automatically. Its like me creating a National Advancement for European-Americans Association (NAEAA) because other races get the spotlight. As a European-American, I have unique issues that I face that African-Americans and immigrants don't have. They don't get as much media attention. Why this is because everyone already knows about them. It would be telling the audience what it already knows. And there is no sympathy to build. Who cares to call me a 'European-American person' as opposed to a 'white'? How about how Deutsch people are often portrayed as Nazis, and how that's not fair to people of my heritage? Why can't I wear runes and symbols of my cultural heritage just because some evil group used them? Does anyone care? Not really. Not many people care, because not many people should care, because, yes, that's not fair, but African-American, Asian-American, Hispanic-American, and other types of Americans' issues are more important because their discrimination is actually a life-and-death issue rooted in employment and lack thereof. A NAEAA would be stupid because we are doing swimmingly with out socio-economic clout as European-Americans. As are men. Not that your issues aren't important, they just aren't as politically or economically threatening, and thus aren't as (usually) life and death.

 

[Koori Renchuu]

Because the only way to be equal in gender is explicitly support the rights and interests of women.

Absolutes are not usually a good thing. I never said it was the "only" one, but it is the biggest one.

Oh really?

In other news, prostate cancer funding by the government is proportionally lower than breast cancer for the fatality rate each cancer has. Also, men have shorter lifespans in general, as you pointed out. This, too, needs to be addressed. Women are also allowed social security at an earlier age.

Just because men are not what you consider an oppressed minority does not lessen the issues that they bring up. The fact that the feminist movement did not make sure the laws that they wanted to be put into action kept men in mind is the major part of the problem. Violence Against Women Act, nowhere in that law are there provisions on violence against men. I will agree that men have not been self-advocating. Stop being so self righteous, the two movements can exist simultaneously. I condemn the lack of action on the feminist movement's part, but not the movement itself.

 

[Butterfree]

It's a bit silly to complain about the feminist movement's "lack of action", as if obviously these things wouldn't be around if the feminist movement had just bothered to address it. The feminist movement, on the whole, fights against gender inequality in general, including when men are arguably the ones getting the shorter end of the stick, but that doesn't mean it can't focus its large-scale action on women's issues (of which there are a ton, especially since - let's face it - women are clearly more oppressed than men on the whole). There is a lot of fighting to be done, and the feminist movement not having waved a magic wand to wish these particular problems away doesn't mean feminists don't care.

 

[Dannichu]

From what I can tell, what 'masculinists' are more annoyed about than anything is that feminists are getting stuff done. More girls are achieving highly academically, there's more awareness of breast cancer, there's greater support for women who are in abusive relationships. I don't understand why someone would look at these (undisputibly good!) things and have their first thought be "But surely this means that BOYS are doing less well, people have less awareness of PROSTATE cancer, and that MEN in abusive relationships have less support!". There isn't some giant pie-chart of gender issues, and if women get a bigger chunk, it detracts from what men have. Stop whining and get out there and do something if it's something you care about. The feminists are doing their bit (you know a big part of the reason women have a higher life expectancy? Because when they think something's wrong with their bodies, they're more likely to go to a doctor and get it checked out. Feminists don't have a problem with expressions like "man up" because it's male-centric, but because it reinforces a gendered sterotype that is just as, if not more, damaging to men as it is to women), but sitting there complaining about all the wonderful progress that has been made in regards to 'women's issues' is helping precisely nobody.

 

[Pwnemon]

Psssst, last I checked male circumcision does not have destroying someone's ability to enjoy sex as a reason to do it. Also last I checked male circumcision is a viable treatment for certain health problems. It's terrible that people are circumcised without their consent! Feminists tend to be against this! But please stop framing them as equivalent issues.Iiiii'm pretty sure domestic violence shelters for men exist. There are also a lot of mixed-gender shelters!

Also? I don't think cops being fuckheads says anything about feminism. In fact I'm fairly sure I read an article or two on one of the feminist blogs I follow complaining about either that case or something similar. Your point, please?Uh, last I checked? A lot of feminists are against registering for the draft period. Also, last I checked, the US had an all-volunteer army so while it sucks that men have to register for the draft, it's not exactly something with much of an impact on life. And there's the whole thing with only men having to register for the draft most likely being rooted in the perception that women don't belong in combat....


Are you just going down an MRA checklist? o_O

I bet someone's already pointed this out, but I cba to read because it's really started to bug at me.

Masculism is not the equivalent of saying "feminists are fucks." It's fully compatible. It's just addressing the gender inequality issues which women often leave out.

 

[Koori Renchuu]

I am not disputing the overall good that the feminist movement has done for the world. I am only trying to prove that the masculist movement is an equally necessary movement. I feel that masculism is a tempering force to feminism, not an opposing force. There are, after all, a multitude of male centered issues that women may not understand. The prostate is a gland found in men alone, the procedures for testing and treatment are often highly invasive. Mammographies are not as highly invasive in nature for either testing or treatment. Fatherhood is much different than motherhood. Male reproductive health is much different than its female equivalent, it's much simpler. It's a matter of perspective, like I will not truly know how it feels to be a woman, in the same way as a woman will not truly know how it feels to be a man.

From what I can tell, what 'masculinists' are more annoyed about than anything is that feminists are getting stuff done. More girls are achieving highly academically, there's more awareness of breast cancer, there's greater support for women who are in abusive relationships. I don't understand why someone would look at these (undisputibly good!) things and have their first thought be "But surely this means that BOYS are doing less well, people have less awareness of PROSTATE cancer, and that MEN in abusive relationships have less support!". There isn't some giant pie-chart of gender issues, and if women get a bigger chunk, it detracts from what men have. Stop whining and get out there and do something if it's something you care about. The feminists are doing their bit (you know a big part of the reason women have a higher life expectancy? Because when they think something's wrong with their bodies, they're more likely to go to a doctor and get it checked out. Feminists don't have a problem with expressions like "man up" because it's male-centric, but because it reinforces a gendered sterotype that is just as, if not more, damaging to men as it is to women), but sitting there complaining about all the wonderful progress that has been made in regards to 'women's issues' is helping precisely nobody.

I'm sorry that we men mature at a slower rate in general.
If I am not mistaken, feminism started in roughly the same way, complaining until the action starts rolling. Men are slower to act, as you put forth.

Here's the deal with education though, the current system is geared more towards girls than boys. The elimination of recess in many schools is part of this, boys have to have somewhat of a physical activity break that is open in its nature. This is advantageous to the girls, who work equally well in either situation. The prevalence of female teachers also has a negative effect on a boys learning. Boys perform better academically when they have at least one male teacher early on in life.

 

[Ivy Newton]

I feel that masculism is a tempering force to feminism, not an opposing force.

I don't think "tempering" is the word you want there. To me that suggests that you think the feminist movement needs to be curbed, which wouldn't really make sense. If that is what you meant, then yeah you're really not making a good case for yourself here.

Masculism can be a complementary force to feminism, but increased awareness of men's issues should not require a decrease in focus on women's issues. As others have said, it's not as if there's a limited amount of focus that can be given to the two movements, that must be divided up between them. People can support both causes concurrently just fine.

Here's the deal with education though, the current system is geared more towards girls than boys. The elimination of recess in many schools is part of this, boys have to have somewhat of a physical activity break that is open in its nature. This is advantageous to the girls, who work equally well in either situation. The prevalence of female teachers also has a negative effect on a boys learning. Boys perform better academically when they have at least one male teacher early on in life.

This entire paragraph seems to me to be full of gender inequality. "Boys need more physical activity than girls". "Boys learn better with male teachers". I'm sorry, but why the hell would either of those things make any difference? Do you have anything to support this? Because honestly I really don't see why either of these would be true, other than unfounded gender biases.

 

[Eloi]

Oh really?

In other news, prostate cancer funding by the government is proportionally lower than breast cancer for the fatality rate each cancer has. Also, men have shorter lifespans in general, as you pointed out. This, too, needs to be addressed. Women are also allowed social security at an earlier age.

Just because men are not what you consider an oppressed minority does not lessen the issues that they bring up.

This is True, yes, but I'm not sure how you consider them a "minority"? The dead white males of history, world literature, and politics are a good indicator to me that they are quite powerful. The only reason why males haven't got attention to these causes is because other, more powerful males haven't cared yet to do something with their immense clout that they wield. Seriously, why blame us feminists when you guys are the people running the political and economic machines?

 

[surskitty]

I bet someone's already pointed this out, but I cba to read because it's really started to bug at me.

Masculism is not the equivalent of saying "feminists are fucks." It's fully compatible. It's just addressing the gender inequality issues which women often leave out.

Then why is it that most men's rights activists spend most of their time complaining about what feminists are doing rather than, I don't know, spending effort being productive? I don't have much respect for people who spend more time complaining about other people not focusing on issues that for them are slightly lower priority than actually working to fix those issues.

There's this huge perception among MRAs that activism is a zero-sum game and each of Koori's posts is simply dripping in this.

The prevalence of female teachers also has a negative effect on a boys learning. Boys perform better academically when they have at least one male teacher early on in life.

I'm not sure why you're concluding that it's the prevalence of female teachers that's the issue and not the absence of male elementary-school teachers.


Could try replying to everything else, but still sick and exhausted so maybe later.

 

[Automata heart]

you know, i think this is a pretty good movement. woman aren't being seen as lower through it, and its not as if its reversing all the work woman have put in for equal rights. i can't see anything wrong with it. maybe its time for this. it could be time for men to take "being manly" back and make it theirs.
(and i, as a woman, support this whole heartedly.)

 

[Dannichu]

The prevalence of female teachers also has a negative effect on a boys learning. Boys perform better academically when they have at least one male teacher early on in life.

And GUESS WHO is leading the fight against the social attitude that jobs involving looking after kids (such as primary school teaching) isn't just 'women's work'? If you said FEMINISTS, then ding ding ding YOU ARE CORRECT. It's not women who're taking over all the teaching jobs and stealing them from men, but a societal attitude that 'kids' are women's work, and that teaching jobs, especially in primary and special needs schools, shouldn't be paid well.

As an aside, did you know that, while the vast majority of primary school teachers are female, only about 50% of headteachers in the UK are women?
(if anyone begins to say that men are 'naturally' 'better' at being headteachers rather than this being because of institutionalised sexism (the same way that most nurses and librarians are women, but the head nurses and librarians are actually more likely to be men), I'll throw something at their face.)

More fun facts.

 

[ultraviolet]

Stop being so self righteous, the two movements can exist simultaneously. I condemn the lack of action on the feminist movement's part, but not the movement itself.

I am not disputing the overall good that the feminist movement has done for the world. I am only trying to prove that the masculist movement is an equally necessary movement. I feel that masculism is a tempering force to feminism, not an opposing force.

okay! so why exactly couldn't there be a movement set for gender equality that aims to right inequalities between men and women as a whole? why couldn't feminists and masculinists or whatever just become one movement? nobody's saying that male issues aren't a big deal! feminism is already trying to accomplish those things! I don't see how two different movements aiming for pretty much the same thing - gender equality - is in any way better than one movement for everyone.

What I'm trying to say is that there are a shitload of people calling themselves feminists who are not for gender equality. The pop version of feminism is basically "women should be allowed to work with men and vote and shit" and it stops there. That's where you get people thinking things like "feminism does nothing for men" and "feminists just want female superiority." And even if you say "no, feminism as a movement is about gender equality and this and that," all people will say in response is "well I've never met a single feminist like that. Why should I believe you?" In addition, you also risk drifting into "no true Scotsman" territory.

I agree, and this is why masculism pops up; feminism is used these days for a multitude of viewpoints that aren't necessarily about gender equality at all, and many women do use 'feminism' to tell people what they think men should do for women when that's not even what it's about. This is why I think that people should just start campaigning for equality rather than feminism; most people I know consider feminism to be the bra-burning feminism of the 60's or making women dominant over men. It's unfortunate, but if you want people to look past what you call yourself and start listening then I really think feminists are going to have to call themselves something different. :/

 

[opaltiger]

There are, after all, a multitude of male centered issues that women may not understand. The prostate is a gland found in men alone, the procedures for testing and treatment are often highly invasive. Mammographies are not as highly invasive in nature for either testing or treatment.

It's a good thing male feminists are around to provide input on such issues, then, isn't it?

It's unfortunate, but if you want people to look past what you call yourself and start listening then I really think feminists are going to have to call themselves something different. :/

I can see where you're coming from, but I just can't agree. Just because a lot of people misunderstand the term doesn't mean we should stop using it. Instead we should educate people about what it means and reclaim it from those who try to use it to demonise.

 

[Pwnemon]

ITT: Lots of confusing statements in which everyone is stuck on the same page but still quibbling over how to word it.

We're all for gender equality in all areas, no? We all agree that hardly anything is free from discrimination, yes? THEN WHY ARE WE STILL ARGUING.

It seems the entire fight here is over the semantics of what to call the gender equality movement. The answer: who cares. Call it masculism, call it feminism, call it genderical equalism, call it whatever you want. It's all a united front anyways!


Fake Edit: I saw what Koori said about the education system and I just wanted to say one thing- Elementary school textbooks.

"Generic Boy Name and Generic girl name are trying to solve this problem. Generic Boy did ____ and got ____. Generic girl did ____ and got ____. Who was correct?" I could skip their work, never do the problem, say generic boy got it wrong, and be correct 100% of the time. And I'm no expert, but I think that this may have a subconscious effect on the whole "girls are better in school and boys should peddle illegal drugs" mentality. >:L

 

[hopeandjoy]

I never noticed that. Like, at all. Me thinks you are grasping at straws, Pwnemon.

 

[Ryan the Terrible]

ITT: Lots of confusing statements in which everyone is stuck on the same page but still quibbling over how to word it.

We're all for gender equality in all areas, no? We all agree that hardly anything is free from discrimination, yes? THEN WHY ARE WE STILL ARGUING.

It seems the entire fight here is over the semantics of what to call the gender equality movement. The answer: who cares. Call it masculism, call it feminism, call it genderical equalism, call it whatever you want. It's all a united front anyways!

I actually fully agree with all of this.

We all agree on the actual points of both gender equalism movements, so why are we having a vocab battle here?

 

[opaltiger]

I actually fully agree with all of this.

We all agree on the actual points of both gender equalism movements, so why are we having a vocab battle here?

Do we? I still think some people are missing the point. So long as there are misconceptions to clear up about feminism and what it means, I don't think the question is a semantic one.

 

[Time Psyduck]

ITT: Lots of confusing statements in which everyone is stuck on the same page but still quibbling over how to word it.

We're all for gender equality in all areas, no? We all agree that hardly anything is free from discrimination, yes? THEN WHY ARE WE STILL ARGUING.

It seems the entire fight here is over the semantics of what to call the gender equality movement. The answer: who cares. Call it masculism, call it feminism, call it genderical equalism, call it whatever you want. It's all a united front anyways!

Unfortunately it isn't. "Feminism" covers a wide range of things, from just 'Why should women not have basic human rights just because they're women?' (such as not being allowed to go to school in some places) through 'men and women should be paid the same for the same work', right through to the crazy end where they think all men only ever think about having sex with all women they lay eyes on, or that women should rule men.

With some feminists focussing entirely on women's rights and issues (which is fair enough), Masculism appears as counterpart for male issues. However that in turn gets mixed up with and/or overlaps the extreme misogynists, who see women as heartless/subhuman/evil.

Naturally, those on the edges tend to see those on the other edge as being anti-them. People in the middle usually see both ends as either crazy or unpleasant. I think just about everyone here is close enough to the middle that we mostly agree on everything, but it doesn't apply generally.

Gender equality explains the basic ideas best, but other people likely have their own reason for using whatever term they use.

 

[opaltiger]

Unfortunately it isn't. "Feminism" covers a wide range of things, from just 'Why should women not have basic human rights just because they're women?' (such as not being allowed to go to school in some places) through 'men and women should be paid the same for the same work', right through to the crazy end where they think all men only ever think about having sex with all women they lay eyes on, or that women should rule men.

No. I'm sorry, that simply isn't true. First of all I have never actually encountered someone like that last group, but even if they existed, they wouldn't be feminists. Calling yourself a feminist isn't enough.