Lets get this out into the open: MRAs

[Rashiminos]

Fear not. Warpus has me bang to rights.

I was arguing hypothetically...

 

[Oruc]

Neither feminism nor MRA should be taken seriously. Both deny the fundamental psychological and physical differences between genders. Actually, I would argue that feminism and MRA are sides of the same coin, with the common goal of effacing differences between men and women.

I think it is fairly normal that men die more often on the workplace and that women earn on average less. Both are related to the lifestyle choices men and women generally make and are in most cases best suited for.

So? I'd say feminism isn't really an issue in itself. Like MRA, it is part of a larger problem of naive egalitarian ideology of sameness and dogmatic colourblindness. The dogmatic desire to "balance" fundamental differences between humans.

Well you put this better then myself, I would have said they are both whiners and MRas want victim group status

 

[El_Machinae]

But what are the criteria, and why would women have an easier time meeting them? And if they did wouldn't that make the criteria inherently sexist? Unless of course the women really are a lower risk of being reoffenders, but why should that be necessarily the case for the particular women in question, who are charged with the exact same crimes as the men they are being compared to? I'm not saying it couldn't be the case, but... could you give even a small example of what you mean?

Okay, for example, suppose "having an adult family to live with after your sentence" was a criteria for a shorter sentence.

Now, no particular woman necessarily has a place to go afterwards. And, neither do men.

BUT, if on average women were more able to meet these criteria, then when you sum and average the total sentence length, it would look like women got shorter sentences.
Now, any specific woman would have gotten the consideration (or not). Same with any specific man. But the averages would show a sex-based difference.

 

[Tahuti]

I assumed his post was satire. I can't think of any other explanation.

Though I've seen something similar. Can't remember when. So he may have copy-pasted it from a PUA site or somewhere.

I dunno, this is the guy who cheerfully describes himself as an "anti-democratic reactionary". If it's satire, he's deeply invested in the bit.

I was just me altering the article JR posted, though I wouldn't be surprised if something similar appeared elsewhere. It is rather tongue-in-cheek, though at the same time I definitely think male chivalry to women is a good thing, no matter what either feminists or mra's think of it.

 

[Borachio]

Chivalry by everyone to everyone is a good idea.

Though you can keep that kneeling-in-a-church-all-night thing, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Okay, for example, suppose "having an adult family to live with after your sentence" was a criteria for a shorter sentence.

Now, no particular woman necessarily has a place to go afterwards. And, neither do men.

BUT, if on average women were more able to meet these criteria, then when you sum and average the total sentence length, it would look like women got shorter sentences.
Now, any specific woman would have gotten the consideration (or not). Same with any specific man. But the averages would show a sex-based difference.

Having an adult family to live with? Are you assuming the criminal is a juvenile? If the criminal is already an adult, then what do you mean by adult family? Pensioner-age parents? Living with an extended sibling group?

Also, are you saying there is evidence or reason to believe that women, on average, are more likely to have an adult family to live with after prison (however you are defining that)?

 

[Rashiminos]

We're no longer feral animals, this biotruths stuff is quite insulting.

Is it insulting because it's incorrect, or because you want it to be so, but aren't really sure whether it is? If the former, why waste your energy describing the insult rather than the falsity?

 

[KMRblue1027]

Has anyone posted this yet?

http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-uncomfortable-truths-behind-mens-rights-movement/

 

[Tahuti]

Has anyone posted this yet?

http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-uncomfortable-truths-behind-mens-rights-movement/

I think it does demonstrates the general point that MRA is more about (hating) women than about men (pride).

 

[Borachio]

And what differences are those pray tell? Beyond one's ability to impregnate and another's ability to give birth?

We're no longer feral animals, this biotruths stuff is quite insulting.

Men like electric drills, women don't (unless they're lesbians in which you can't prise an electric drill from their dead hands).

Women like shoes. A lot. Men like shoes, too. But, honestly, not as much as some women.

That's about it really. Drills and shoes.

Oh, and the colour pink. That's a bit of a giveaway.

 

[Rashiminos]

I think that in developed nations, patriarchy now continues to operate mostly through minute, scarcely-noticable, notions and assumptions.

With a minor caveat, I agree. The caveat is that noticeability increases as one's identification with the group in question decreases. Least noticeable with oneself, rarely noticeable within one's close peer groups, and extremely (and exaggeratedly) noticeable in groups that one has contempt for, illegitimately or not.

But these notions and assumptions are nevertheless numerous and collectively, they silently condition our thinking in ways that generally tend to work to the advantage of men.

Whites, heterosexuals, the abled... variations on a theme.

Let me give as an example the phrase I used in my first post: “Be a man!” This is an exhortation to adopt a particular kind of behavior, generally regarded as predominantly positive: Be strong, be tough, work through small pains. Its sheer existence as an exhortation indicates that the behavior suggested is regarded as on the whole positive (we never say “Be an ax-murderer!&#8221. But there is no equivalent for women. No one exhorts someone to “Be a woman!”

There is no one equivalent. There are a plurality of contenders sponsored by opposing camps. Feminists have their variations on what women should be, and cringe at attempts by men to define what femininity should be. There's also the complication that the seemingly 'unitary' definition of what "men" should be is a problem on its own. If you're having trouble with that latter part, consider the definition of man proposed "by the Patriarchy."

When we put a magnifying glass on this particular asymmetry, we see that, in a tiny way, our language habits suggest to us several things: that there is a mode of masculinity qua masculinity that is predominately regarded as a positive thing, but that there is not for femininity qua femininity; indeed, one could go further and say there is no way at all for women to simply “be.” If a young girl hears her dad tell her brother “Be a man!” and never hears anyone tell her “Be a woman!” she may never consciously notice the discrepency, but in a subtle way, it will probably condition her thinking, and her brother’s.

Our language habits are part and parcel of proliferation of those notions and assumptions mentioned previously.

Now, of course it’s true that the phrase “Be a man!” is not wholly beneficial to men. It’s a way of steering men into a cultural stereotype of masculinity that may not be entirely appropriate or welcome or healthy. It exhorts a cultivated insensitivity, to pain, but also to other things. But between a gender that one can “be” in even a mixed way, and a gender one can’t “be” in any particular way at all, I know which one serves a person better.

And so you begin taking issue with "Be a man!" yet do not see the shift inherent in suggesting an emulation of the ritual for a female stereotype. It might be that you do not know which serves a person better, but insist on a notion or an assumption.

Now this is just one example. I frankly only picked it because it was close to hand. So don’t imagine I’m putting any special stock in this particular example. Perhaps this one exists only in English. But there are thousands of such, and collectively they condition our minds to conceive male success and thriving more easily than female success and thriving.

Or we could drop the gloss of gender and focus on the mind-conditioning aspects.

The net result of these micro-notions was well captured by that article someone linked to this forum a while back on being a white male as being like playing a video game on easy mode.* Men, I believe, continue to be advantaged by numerous small notions and assumptions deeply embedded in our cultural matrix. Women are swimming against a tide. We see the results of that in the wage gap and representation in top positions gap, etc.

Playing with the tide metaphor: Is it wise to swim against a rip tide?

What does feminism need to get past this remnant of patriarchy? Time, scrutiny of minute particulars and creativity. These come to one’s attention. One lays out how they operate. Then one devises clever mechanisms to defamiliarize people with these little constituent parts of the ideology. One needs creativity because it can’t always simply be a tit-for-tat corrective. I’m not sure this case, for example, that the most fruitful avenue would be to devise a workable version of “Be a woman!” (But since this has become a long post, I won't for now elaborate on why. In the mean time, Be a bee!)

They may need to reconsider notions and assumptions about the sources and vectors of attack (in this case, discrimination against women). The source will just find other vectors.

*Now I had one criticism of that article, which was that if all white males are playing on easy mode, but playing against one another, then a lot of the playing doesn’t feel particularly easy to a lot of the men. But still, the main point was valid.

In some contexts. Another context would be that men and women are playing different games.

 

[Borachio]

There is no one equivalent. There are a plurality of contenders sponsored by opposing camps. Feminists have their variations on what women should be, and cringe at attempts by men to define what femininity should be. There's also the complication that the seemingly 'unitary' definition of what "men" should be is a problem on its own. If you're having trouble with that latter part, consider the definition of man proposed "by the Patriarchy

I agree. Women are very much still constrained not to swear, fart, or otherwise smell in public spaces. They've also got issues with urination.

Men, on the other hand, are very much freer in these respects.

Conversely, men are never allowed to ask strangers for directions. Nor are they ever allowed to look like they don't know what they're doing.

 

[Rashiminos]

I agree. Women are very much still constrained not to swear, fart, or otherwise smell in public spaces. They've also got issues with urination.

Qualms against smell are widespread for understandable reasons (tolerating the smell might lead to tolerating the contaminant that produces the smell). There is a preference for clean environments.

Conversely, men are never allowed to ask strangers for directions. Nor are they ever allowed to look like they don't know what they're doing.

Neither of these are correct. Both can be disproved in a workplace setting.

 

[Borachio]

Qualms against smell are widespread for understandable reasons (tolerating the smell might lead to tolerating the contaminant that produces the smell). There is a preference for clean environments.

There is such a preference.

But when did you last hear a woman fart? When did you last hear a man fart (or belch)? I bet the latter is more recent than the former.

On the other hand, women go to much greater lengths not to "perspire" in public, whereas a man who works up a sweat changing a tyre might be considered a really helpful person.

And why are women more linguistically constrained?

Neither of these are correct. Both can be disproved in a workplace setting.

And a workplace setting is not a public space.

While I'm on this topic, why are women constrained to wear so much more jewelry, and smaller wrist watches?

(Hey. You'd do best to ignore me. I'm beginning to warm to this subject.)

 

[NovaKart]

I don't think women are constrained not to swear anymore.

 

[Borachio]

No. Maybe not actively. Nor as much as they were.

But have you not noticed they tend to swear less than men?

They also tend to talk - how shall I say? - more up-class?

 

[Rashiminos]

But when did you last hear a woman fart? When did you last hear a man fart (or belch)? I bet the latter is more recent than the former.

The question might be better phrased if it asked when was the last time I recalled either a man or woman farting. In many situations I wouldn't notice or I'd forget it.

On the other hand, women go to much greater lengths not to "perspire" in public, whereas a man who works up a sweat changing a tyre might be considered a really helpful person.

The reason for the perspiration being a mitigating factor.

And why are women more linguistically constrained?

Diction.

And a workplace setting is not a public space.

(Hey. You'd do best to ignore me. I'm beginning to warm to this subject.)

Roger.

 

[Borachio]

Well. Let me be clearer: A workplace setting is very often not a public space.

And if a workplace is a public space, a worker is constrained by the demands of the job, which overrides many other considerations that they'd otherwise feel constrained by.

 

[NovaKart]

No. Maybe not actively. Nor as much as they were.

But have you not noticed they tend to swear less than men?

They also tend to talk - how shall I say? - more up-class?

Not the women I know. It might be a real generational thing or can vary a lot depending on who you hang out with.

Farting is something I would only do around certain people. I think women probably don't fart around close friends as much but usually it's the same.

It would be pretty funny to see feminists start up a "stop fart shaming women" campaign.

 

[Gori the Grey]

There is no one equivalent. There are a plurality of contenders sponsored by opposing camps. Feminists have their variations on what women should be, and cringe at attempts by men to define what femininity should be.

And so you begin taking issue with "Be a man!" yet do not see the shift inherent in suggesting an emulation of the ritual for a female stereotype. It might be that you do not know which serves a person better, but insist on a notion or an assumption.

Or we could drop the gloss of gender and focus on the mind-conditioning aspects.

I don't think you understood the limitations I imposed on myself in my post.

1) In the example on which I focus, I'm highlighting just the phrase "Be a man!" and indicating that you never hear the equivalent phrase "Be a woman!" Of course all sorts of people have all sorts of ideas about what masculinity or femininity might involve.

2) I wasn't discussing rituals, and I explicitly did and do not suggest an emulation of the phrase “Be a man” in the form of a tidy equivalent, "Be a woman." I'll expand below.

3) The thread is about gender. I have no idea how we'd be served by dropping that, or regarding it as a gloss. Yeekim asked to be given help in understanding how patriarchy specifically survives and continues to advantage men.

So, to answer Yeekim's question, I pointed to one tiny example (but told him it was one of many) of the ways in which patriarchy continues to manifest itself: English has a fixed phrase "Be a man!" but not a fixed phrase "Be a woman!" and even a tiny asymmetry like this hurts women. (Again, I'm not talking about understandings of masculinity and femininity; just the phrase.)

Because that post had already got long, I didn't go further into why the solution is, but I did hint that, in this case, I do not think it is simply for feminists to start using the phrase "Be a woman!" to young girls. First, one can't simply do so. It would be an empty exhortation because there isn't, culturally available, a single understanding of what such behavior would involve; as you indicate, Rash, there are multiple possibilities available. But second, as one contests this phrase, among the things one wants to contest is the imperative voice, and the assumption built into the phrase that being is a matter of doing some relatively straightforward, single thing: in the case of “Be a man!” play through minor pain. Setting aside the fact that we now wouldn’t even want to construct even masculinity in such simplified terms, and certainly don’t want to do so for femininity, to reduce being a woman to doing some specific thing would, well, reduce women (and intersect with many other ideological units that depict men as better doers). I’m not sure we can characterize women as swimming against a rip-tide. No swimmer, no matter how good, could win a race swimming against a rip tide, if the opponent were swimming in calm waters; and plenty of women do succeed in American society. I might favor a metaphor that has them running a race, the man in clear open terrain, and the woman in grass up to her waist. No individual blade of grass impedes her perceptibly, but the endless swaths of it do collectively.