Misandrism

[Disgustipated]

It's been on my mind a lot lately that in some ways, men really do get a raw deal. It bugs me even more that some otherwise intelligent and empathetic people will not even entertain that notion.

Now, given that this is an almost entirely male forum and young males at that, we can all expect some light-hearted "yeah they've got us by the balls" stuff, but I don't want this thread to turn into a mysoginistic rant against women or feminism. So, here's my problems.

1. As previously stated, some people won't entertain the notion that men get a disproportionately hard time in some ways. They (correctly) see that overall, women have had and still do have it harder and suffer more from sexism than men, and seem to think this invalidates any discrimination that men suffer. Doesn't work that way. Just because my sisters may have encountered more sexism than me it doesn't mean the sexism I may have encountered is any less wrong, for example. Some seem to think that by raising this issue you are trivialising sexism against women. Why??? Makes no sense.

2. Jokes about men getting hurt or bellitled are extremely commonplace on TV and in advertising, and no one gives two fiddlestickses about it. Jokes about men being raped are commonplace (don't drop the soap, ha ha), men being kicked in the balls is a comedy staple (don't see many 'jokes' about women being hoofed in the fanny for some reason) and have you ever noticed that while women tend to be sexually objectified in advertising, men tend to be belittled? Men can't work the washing machine, men can't cope with minding the kids, any time an ad centres around one half of a couple 'getting one over' the other, it's invariably the wife who bests the husband. Family Guy is one of the few shows that treats men and women equally appallingly in this respect and I applaud it.

3. While I do believe there is more pressure on women vis-a-vis appearance, there is similar pressure on men and no one takes it seriously. Why is there no recognition that it's just as bad for a 14 YO girl to feel like crap because she doesn't look like Katy Perry as it is for a 14 YO boy to feel like crap because he doesn't look like Usher (or whoever)? Why is objectification of men especially accepted when its in the gay community? Why are oiled-up beefcakes acceptable when it's gay guys leering at them but oiled-up cheerleaders being leered at something 'distasteful'?

4. Why does the Guardian employ the must utterly deranged misandrist, Bidisha to write for them when if they employed a mysoginist equivalent they would be hung, drawn and quartered? The point isn't really the Guardian's editorial policy, the point is that in general, this isn't something that worries anyone.

It just really bugs me. Then there is other stuff like the presupposition of male guilt and evil (guy kills his kids then he's an evil bastard, women kills her kids, she must have snapped, isn't it awful for them and for her, it goes against nature (as if all men have some urge to murder their kids)). The fact that most abuse and neglect of children is by women, yet if somehow me and my wife split up I would have almost no chance of getting custody because I'm a man.

Without resorting to stupidity, does anyone else feel this has gone a bit too far? I'm not blaming women for this, I'm saying society in general has a complete blind spot about it.

I agree with most of what you said, but men should not whine about such things. It's unmanly.

I disagree about the woman killing their kids. They are much more demonized. Men killing their kids is almost accepted in the U.S. appallingly. But for a woman to go against her motherly instinct is revolting to almost everyone.

Additionally, I feel that in fiction, a woman with generally "masculine" traits (i.e. aggressive, assertive, etc.) more often than not has such traits define her in a positive manner, while a man with generally "feminine" traits is seen either as some kind of wishy-washy wimp or comical at best - i.e. a more negative portrayal.

I agree with this. If you look at fiction such as Basic Instinct, Sharon Stone's character is a very strong woman and is very highly regarded. Most strong woman are highly regarded (unless they are butch lesbos), but feminine men are portrayed as weak and can't get laid. The thing is, that is true. Strong women can get laid any time they want, but weak men cannot get laid. So is it wrong to portray something that is true?

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Men killing their kids and then killing themselves is really the lowest of the low. If only Hell existed

 

[Disgustipated]

Honestly, I don't think any of your arguments in the OP are valid. By an large, society in the US is male-dominated, and that includes the culture. Even in shows or ads where men are belittled, women are always shown as being needy and needing them. For example, House or the Simpsons. House has absolutely no personal characteristics that are redeeming, but Cuddy is always shown as "needing" him. In the Simpsons, Homer is a total doofus, but Marge, who they portray as more competent, needs him to get along.

Marge doesn't need Homer. I think you are looking at that all wrong. Marge just likes to be needed. She knows Homer can't live without her, so she feels useful in that regard.

 

[Huayna Capac357]

Marge doesn't need Homer. I think you are looking at that all wrong. Marge just likes to be needed. She knows Homer can't live without her, so she feels useful in that regard.

Even so, it shows the theme that women are there to carry out a purpose for men.

 

[Disgustipated]

And men carry out a purpose for women. I see this as an equal situation. I see no problem with that.

 

[Arwon]

Women have power.. mostly because of their boobs and their butts. But come on.. Men! Stop being such wimps!

That's a very.... narrow and conditional definition of power.

 

[Disgustipated]

agreed. men have money which doesn't fade over time like boobs and butts do.

 

[cybrxkhan]

I agree with this. If you look at fiction such as Basic Instinct, Sharon Stone's character is a very strong woman and is very highly regarded. Most strong woman are highly regarded (unless they are butch lesbos), but feminine men are portrayed as weak and can't get laid. The thing is, that is true. Strong women can get laid any time they want, but weak men cannot get laid. So is it wrong to portray something that is true?

I would agree with that only if the man is only characterized by his femininity. I suppose it might be that I prefer more complicated characters in my stories more than other factors, but I think it's possible to have a "feminine" man who is still a strong character. Strong women are always seen as interesting characters that 'break' female stereotypes (although it's sort of becoming old already), while men with feminine traits aren't seen as 'breaking' stereotypes as much as they are just being comic relief or something. So a girl that knows how to beat the out of men = cool/awesome/inspiring/interesting, while a guy who likes to knit = comedy material. Granted this is all from the perspective of a male, but I still think there is some imbalance here.

Although one thing I will admit is that 'strong' women can be sexualized - I guess the clothing choices of the warrior princesses from fantasy stories or those superheroines are good examples of that. However, it's not always the case, and with feminine men, it's harder to sexualize them.

Or something like that.

 

[civ_king]

I believe Men and Women are equals, but not the same, apparently this is sexist. Could someone explain how it is sexist?

 

[Perfection]

I believe Men and Women are equals, but not the same, apparently this is sexist. Could someone explain how it is sexist?

It could be that some aspects you believe aren't the same in fact are.

For instance you could believe that men have much potential to be great violinists then women even though this is (I assume) false even though you believe that men and women are in some important way equal.

These sorts of sexual prejudices are closely related to sexism and the term "sexism" is often used more broadly to describe sexual prejudice (especially against women) in general.

 

[_random_]

Guys can get knockers if they spend enough time in the gym.

Or too little.

 

[Rashiminos]

tl;dr - pick your battles.

So the other battles are legitimate for the "other side?" Win the legal battle, lose the mental campaign.

Men killing their kids and then killing themselves is really the lowest of the low. If only Hell existed

Something that one could call Hell does.

Men don't have a higher pain threshold.

Having a higher pain threshold is a question of willpower. Practicing it can tend to lead to better results when a higher threshold is needed.

House has absolutely no personal characteristics that are redeeming, but Cuddy is always shown as "needing" him. In the Simpsons, Homer is a total doofus, but Marge, who they portray as more competent, needs him to get along.

Putting aside writer incompetence, House does seem persistent in seeking the answer to his patients' problems. Marge does not like Homer for his intellectual traits.

 

[Narz]

The mother of my child, her mother & her sister are all big time misandronists. It's very sad, disturbing and scary & I hope my daughter doesn't grow up to be one because it's very alienating (just as being a misogynist is alienating). Actually my mother is a bit of a misandronist too (though more in a general sense - men cause all the world's problems, etc. & doesn't treat individual males poorly), she probably would've been much happier with a girl.

 

[Narz]

For instance you could believe that men have much potential to be great violinists then women even though this is (I assume) false even though you believe that men and women are in some important way equal.

Men are better at music in general I think (though obviously this is hard to quantify).

 

[civ_king]

It could be that some aspects you believe aren't the same in fact are.

For instance you could believe that men have much potential to be great violinists then women even though this is (I assume) false even though you believe that men and women are in some important way equal.

These sorts of sexual prejudices are closely related to sexism and the term "sexism" is often used more broadly to describe sexual prejudice (especially against women) in general.

I don't see how men or women would have a natural preference toward playing violins. OTOH women see to be better at taking care of children, would it be sexist to say women are better at breastfeeding then men?

 

[Narz]

I don't see how men or women would have a natural preference toward playing violins. OTOH women see to be better at taking care of children, would it be sexist to say women are better at breastfeeding then men?

They're better at yeast infections too.

 

[Miles Teg]

I don't see how men or women would have a natural preference toward playing violins.

Gimme ten minutes to work on some evolutionary psych theory of how human males developed a skill for precise control of drawn strings from our ancient ancestors shooting bows on the plains of the Serengeti, and a genetic predisposition to hear pitch, which would have allowed our hunting male ancestors to identify the calls of particularly tasty birds. However, while men might be good on the violin, women are better with the harp, because the most ancient females were under selective pressure to pluck the ripest buds of wheat, which gave them the very nimble fingertips they need for that particular instrument.

Actually, give me a couple hours and I should be able to give you something publishable.

 

[cybrxkhan]

Gimme ten minutes to work on some evolutionary psych theory of how human males developed a skill for precise control of drawn strings from our ancient ancestors shooting bows on the plains of the Serengeti, and a genetic predisposition to hear pitch, which would have allowed our hunting male ancestors to identify the calls of particularly tasty birds. However, while men might be good on the violin, women are better with the harp, because the most ancient females were under selective pressure to pluck the ripest buds of wheat, which gave them the very nimble fingertips they need for that particular instrument.

Actually, give me a couple hours and I should be able to give you something publishable.

My anthropology professor a while back was also talking about this kind of thing (she's a she, if that matters to anybody), about how the fact that most men hunt and women go pick berries or something similar probably did have some ramifications on later human developments. According to her, the reason why women usually didn't go hunting in the first place was because they were the ones having babies, and it's pretty stupid to be carrying around a childwhile you're roaming over craploads of terrain to search for dangerous life-threatening beasts, so it was why women tended to do things like pick berries or nuts, because it's a lot easier to do that while simultaneously you're pregnant or if you have a little kid you have to breastfeed.

 

[BasketCase]

Posting in bold & caps isn't going to get you laid.

Already has. Twice in the last two weeks. Tucker had it pretty much spot on: women do like it when you tell them they're pretty, but they also like it when you're kind of a dick. So mix it up a little.

 

[Atticus]

Gimme ten minutes to work on some evolutionary psych theory of how human males developed a skill for precise control of drawn strings from our ancient ancestors shooting bows on the plains of the Serengeti, and a genetic predisposition to hear pitch, which would have allowed our hunting male ancestors to identify the calls of particularly tasty birds...

Sometimes little irony works so much better than detailed argument