The Rights of Men

[Manfred Belheim]

My hopes for this thread have dwindled. Part of it my fault I suppose. My OP should have been meatier (and probably not beginning with the concept of male privilege) to sustain a better discussion. By the end, if 10% of the posts were good serious posts on men's issues, then I wouldn't consider this thread a waste.

The problem, as I see it, is that there simply isn't enough goodwill on either side to have a productive discussion and a lot of people just aren't interested in re-evaluating their stances or trying to form more than a stereotypical caricature of the opposition. Obviously I think some parties are more guilty than this of others, but it's probably a factor on both sides.

As for the conversation constantly going back to feminism. First of all, I don't see this as necessarily a failure as it would be rather foolish to suggest the two topics aren't intimately related. The oft-repeated SJW* criticism that there's no reason for men's rights discussion to address feminism at all is rather short-sighted at best and disingenuous at worst. However, when we spend several pages talking about nothing but slut-shaming then things have clearly gone way off the rails.

For my part, I apologise for responding too vehemently against the "male privilege" OP because I feel that the responses to that are largely to blame for the clustercoitus that followed. Having said that, I still feel it was a valid criticism to make, but perhaps I could have been more constructive about it.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

And yes, i do believe there are rights that men can and could have, but i don't buy into this belief that they are somehow downtrodden wholescale by women.

The problem is that a lot of people don't buy into the belief that women are somehow downtrodden wholescale by men.

Basically these are two emotive and incompatible world views so it's hard to see how a contructive discussion CAN come out of it.

 

[useless]

History shows otherwise however.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Thus demonstrating how a constructive discussion is not going to come out of it.

"I'm right" will never be a convincing argument.

 

[Ryika]

History shows otherwise however.

It is true that women were always "one step behind" when it comes to rights and their options where always more limited than the options that men had (who, during most of history, also had VERY limited options available to them). However, that is only half the story, and if that is all you see, then you're blind to the fact that men have always been the ones who died while hunting, died while defending their communities and died in war (and this was even supported by feminists).

What is so hard about acknowledging that history was a mess for pretty much everyone except a few lucky ones?

And can you please quote the person who has the opinion that men are "somehow downtrodden wholescale by women."? I can't find anything even similar to that in this thread.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

But it's just moving the goalposts anyway because the statement was:

a lot of people don't buy into the belief that women are somehow downtrodden wholescale by men.

In the same way, if I'd claimed that the government and people of Rome were in no way interested in conquering Europe and North Africa and forming an empire, then "history shows otherwise" would have been a nonsense retort. And that's even using an example of something that we can presumably all agree actually did happen in the past.

 

[useless]

I'm under no illusion that life was tough for men.

Also, it was men who determined and enforced the social mores that women were unfit for war (although in a few occasions throughout history female warriors were in use), men who determined and enforced the social mores that women should stay at home and basically give birth.

If we're going to ask for quotes, can someone please quote me where i explicitly state that i hate men or that they cannot have issues?

 

[useless]

But it's just moving the goalposts anyway because the statement was:



In the same way, if I'd claimed that the government and people of Rome were in no way interested in conquering Europe and North Africa and forming an empire, then "history shows otherwise" would have been a nonsense retort. And that's even using an example of something that we can presumably all agree actually did happen in the past.

How is it nonsense if it actually happened? For all the complaining about feminism and feminists, both are relatively new in the grand scheme of things, for centuries men pretty much held the upper hand in society and both genders have suffered for that.

Seriously, i have no idea where you all get the idea that i think men have had it easy throughout history, life has sucked for all, but its not invalid to point out that women also got the short stick as well.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I think if you make a statement and someone challenges you on that statement then it's not really the ideal response to pass the buck and challenge someone else's statement in lieu of addressing it.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

How is it nonsense if it actually happened? For all the complaining about feminism and feminists, both are relatively new in the grand scheme of things, for centuries men pretty much held the upper hand in society and both genders have suffered for that.

As I just said, it's moving the goalposts. It's a nonsense response because it doesn't respond to what I actually said.

Not that I'm agreeing that what you said is correct either, but when I said "nonsense retort" I was specifically referring to you moving the goalposts.

 

[useless]

It all ties into the current belief that women somehow have more rights then men or are somehow treated better by society as a whole.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

It all ties into the current belief that women somehow have more rights then men or are somehow treated better by society as a whole.

It may give some historical perspective, but it's still irrelevant to anything that's actually happening now, and certainly irrelevant to what I said.

But also, who is expressing this belief that you refer to? Certainly not me. All I said was that some people don't buy into the belief that women are downtrodden wholesale by men. This doesn't imply that I think they have it better as a whole.

 

[Senethro]

If men are really not privileged now and need their own special advocacy then I'd like to know the crossover point. If people could indicate the best disposition of gender privileges on the scales of Saudi Arabia ---> Sweden and pick a year 1800 to present in an English speaking nation, that might be kind of helpful.

What does an equal society, or our closest approximation of, look like?

 

[Ryika]

I'm under no illusion that life was tough for men.

Great, so how does "History shows otherwise however." work then?

Also, it was men who determined and enforced the social mores that women were unfit for war (although in a few occasions throughout history female warriors were in use), men who determined and enforced the social mores that women should stay at home and basically give birth.

No, I am sorry, that's not true. Have you never had biology classes?

These gender roles existed long, long before men and women could actively "determine" anything. As with all sexually dimorphic species clear gender roles are what secured the survival of humans and their predecessors during history. Women were kept in relative safety because they were important as baby-machines, while men were the ones going out hunting and defending the tribe, because they were important as utilities to bring food for their women and to keep them safe.

The reason for that is simple: Having a gender that is specialized in giving birth and having a gender that is specialized in hunting/doing stuff that requires strong muscles saves resources overall.

Since the time where humans began to do agriculture that was less true overall in terms of "overall survival of the species", but until around ~300 years ago it was still true in terms of families - and families were pretty much what allowed people to keep their status.

It is only now in the "modern age" that these gender roles are not that important anymore, and who would have guessed? We see them easing up. Slowly of course, but that's to be expected.

 

[useless]

Great, so how does "History shows otherwise however." work then?


No, I am sorry, that's not true. Have you never had biology classes?

These gender roles existed long, long before men and women could actively "determine" anything. As with all sexually dimorphic species clear gender roles are what secured the survival of humans and their predecessors during history. Women were kept in relative safety because they were important as baby-machines, while men were the ones going out hunting and defending the tribe, because they were important as utilities to bring food for their women and to keep them safe.

The reason for that is simple: Having a gender that is specialized in giving birth and having a gender that is specialized in hunting/doing stuff that requires strong muscles saves resources overall.

Since the time where humans began to do agriculture that was less true overall in terms of "overall survival of the species", but until around ~300 years ago it was still true in terms of families - and families were pretty much what allowed people to keep their status.

It is only now in the "modern age" that these gender roles are not that important anymore, and who would have guessed? We see them easing up. Slowly of course, but that's to be expected.

Because throughout history women have been opressed simply because of the genitals they possess?

How can you explain societies in which women existed as warriors then? If it truly is the case then we should see males consistantly being in the combat role, but there are examples of females, even before the invention of guns, being involved in such.

Also, i expect an apology because i did actually attend biology classes and that was a baseless attack against me.

 

[Ryika]

Because throughout history women have been opressed simply because of the genitals they possess?

Being at home in safety is being "oppressed"? No, they have not been "oppressed" because of their genitals, but yes, their unique advantages and disadvantages were different from the unique advantages and disadvantages of men because of their genitals, that is true.

How can you explain societies in which women existed as warriors then? If it truly is the case then we should see males consistantly being in the combat role, but there are examples of females, even before the invention of guns, being involved in such.

There have always been exceptions, especially women in privileged positions had more options, as well as women who had somehow proved themselves as strong warriors - nobody is denying that. Also, when a society is on its downfall it generally does not have the luxury of keeping gender roles active, as it's no longer about making sure the next generation can exist, but about direct survival for the current generation.

There have never been societies that had armies that were mostly made of female soldiers.

Also, i expect an apology because i did actually attend biology classes and that was a baseless attack against me.

I will apologize the moment you show me that your statement was correct and that mine was wrong, until then I stand by the question, because your answer was completely ignoring the biological processes behind it and replacing it with woo - if you ignore biology then my assumptions are that you're either willfully ignoring the facts, or that you simply don't know the facts.

So actually I was giving you the benefit of doubt by asking that question.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Because throughout history women have been opressed simply because of the genitals they possess?

That's just saying "I'm right" again.

 

[Senethro]

Being at home in safety is being "oppressed"? No, they have not been "oppressed" because of their genitals, but yes, their unique advantages and disadvantages were different from the unique advantages and disadvantages of men because of their genitals, that is true.

Lol if you think women were somehow excluded from the ravages of war just because they largely weren't allowed on the battlefield. Some safety.

Absurd.

 

[useless]

Lol if you think women were somehow excluded from the ravages of war just because they largely weren't allowed on the battlefield. Some safety.

Absurd.

And who decided they couldn't go on the battlefield? Let's take a minute and think about it...

Men.

 

[Senethro]

And who decided they couldn't go on the battlefield? Let's take a minute and think about it...

Men.

So the men on both sides line up, stab each other, and the winners get the losers women.

How is this safety for the women again?