The Rights of Men

[Senethro]

And yet "Women were oppressed in history!" is not an argument against equally discussing and working to fix the problems of both genders. Even if every single women had been pure property held in a cage and every single man had been an individual spanking and abusing the women in these cages until things suddenly changed 100 years ago it would not mean that women today require more support for problems that are not any more severe than the problems of men today.

Problems need to be tackled by the effects they have on people living today and people that will live in the future.

I mostly agree, but how do you know that women today do not have more severe problems? How do you measure this? Do your measurements allow you to point to a year (different for each country obviously) in which equality was achieved?

But either way, this is still very far away from that "women were oppressed during all of history!" that gets thrown around casually. Again, only very few people had actual freedoms as we know them today, most lived by necessity and the days of both genders were filled with activities that were a necessity to keep the family alive and well.

And by god did those privileged people fight hard to keep those freedoms exclusive to themselves. There have always been reactionaries to the advancement of equality.

 

[Ryika]

I mostly agree, but how do you know that women today do not have more severe problems? How do you measure this? Do your measurements allow you to point to a year (different for each country obviously) in which equality was achieved?

I do not claim to know which gender has the bigger problems currently. What I claim to know is that both genders have problems that I would classify as "serious" and that it would only be fair and equal to tackle both of them. And that it would easily be possible to tackle almost all of them without any negative consequences for the other gender, because most problems are not zero-sum games.

And by god did those privileged people fight hard to keep those freedoms exclusive to themselves. There have always been reactionaries to the advancement of equality.

That's true, but when it comes to that it's mostly an issue of status, less an issue of gender. Like I said, women were pretty much always "one step behind" when it comes to rights in history, but low-status people of both genders were miles behind those who were on the top of our society. It is the men at the top of the pyramid of power who try to hold back those below (<- this is, "on average", again), not the men in general.

 

[Farm Boy]

So Jackelgull - we have parts of our society that suck for men or, depending on how people like things phrased, where men suck in society(it's practically the same thing when it comes down to it), what are they, where are they, and why? I'm not entirely sure, but that's not surprising, it's a big issue and I'm really not all that clever. But there are a couple places we can pick at.

Our children lack sufficient male role models during early life. Not all of them, that would be an idiot's statement, but enough of them and with frightening regularity. Learning about masculinity from TV and magazines(oh yea, it's 2015) and the porn-filled internet is wicked terrible. We need men in households with children in them. Hell, they don't necessarily even have to do the diapers or dishes though that would help, but they do need to be there. Not fighting crime or climaxing on faces, but being dad. We need them in early childhood education. Male elementary school teachers still get looked at as kinda weird or kinda dangerous too often. Male daycare providers? I'm sure they're out there, but I haven't met them. Historical male employment fields which have fueled the day in day out incomes of vast tracts of the middle class in the USA, rather than the CEOs and co-sociopaths, are drying up. Just like the middle class itself. Without being equally valued as a person person, committed to family and children rather than the pursuit of money, male identity dries up. If male identity dries up, then nobody wants them around since they're "useless(adjective, not CFC community member!)." Useless members of society are dangerous, and we already know we send the dangerous to our state rape dungeons. Which is also a problem, particularly for men of color, for whom all these issues are grotesquely cariacatured.

If overlarge gender disparity in advanced, powerful, and highly compensated careers is a social problem worthy of constant attention, and it is, then overlarge gender disparity in the positions that build the muddy foundation of society rather than just the spired towers is too. It's a cultural problem all the way from the top to the bottom. Equalizing treatment by the state in mandated parental leaves and custody cases is just low hanging fruit. If we're not willing to make those things happen, even if it seems weird or unnecessary, then I think we're just not committed to the idea of equality between the genders at all.

Where do you think we need to work on men's issues(boys' issues too, those are also men's issues)? Same places but with different reasoning? Different places? I'm curious as to what you think at your age and with your experience the problem areas are.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Chiefs look a bit silly if they turn up alone. The other tribe had better participation and tell him: "You and whose army?"

Many hierarchies in many societies were weak. Again, society dependent. So clearly some men want to war.

Don't recall ever claiming no men wanted to war. I said it's not fair or correct to just say "men" decided something with zero nuance or recognition of power structures or anything else. Holding all men culpable for the decisions of the few in power simply for sharing genitals is wrong.

So now you're generalising the attitudes of some jingoistic old biddies across all of history? Its a really big assumption you're making.

Not at all, as I said it was merely an example. History is littered with powerful and influential women who you are whitewashing out of existence. You're also completely ignoring the power and influence of women within the family structure which must surely have a very large influence on the shape of society at large. I would propose that this influence is not negligible (is it negligible in your family, or most families you are aware of?). Sorry but just blankly asserting that no women had any power ever is as ludicrous a statement as you think mine is.

Thank you. I do have complete faith in the equality of women. When recorded history shows a low participation (and often unfairly portrayed as absent) in the shaping of that history, I smell a rat. When men of the present tell me it was all ok and noones fault and that women were supportive of it in some ways, we're all equal now, I smell another.

If you insist on constructing rats that are formed from the most glib and black and white interpretations of what other people are actually saying then it's no wonder you can smell them.

Well it was! If women aren't allowed to own property but men are, then women can't own a shield, spear and helm. And the funny thing about warrior classes is that they often make the rules about who gets to be a warrior. And rules about everything else too.

This addresses absolutely nothing I said about ignoring biological or other influencing factors and assuming the thought process was entirely arbitrary. I'm not sure what point you thought I was making that you are trying to address here. Also, "women aren't allowed to own property" is a rather sweeping statement to apply to all civilisations throughout history.

And also, guilty of lumping all "men" into a homogenous hive mind again.

Lolling. Just lolling. Not mature, but what can one do?

Is there some kind of RD rule against being very very wrong?

Well you can lol all you like, but if you're not actually going to respond then there's not much I can do with that. Simply asserting "you are wrong" is no better than "I am right"

If, for example, there are a lot of homeless men on the streets then discussing how and why the historical approach to gender roles has potentially led to that situation developing is all very interesting from an academic point of view, but is of no use in solving the actual issue. The first step is not always to try and engineer some sort of society-wide change in attitude. Sometimes it can be as simple as allocating time and resources to just help people out.

Please explain why you find that so utterly lol-worthy.

It keeps coming up and I'm always amazed at the denial of systematic oppression of women in our immediate predecessor societies.

It is pointless but your'e claiming red is blue.

No good discussion is going to come out of anything if you insist you are saying red is red while the opponent is saying red is blue. I realise that sometimes people are just going to be immovable on a certain point, but really what is the use of basically saying "it's pointless talking to you as long as you continue to disagree with me, because I am right"?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

This is just obviously silly. I'd rather be a person than a possession. Any threat of death hung over everyone, but some classes of people got no say in it. You can't be oppressed by this privilege.

No-one has absolute freedom and control over their lives. This doesn't mean that we are non-people or posessions. You had far fewer rights and freedoms as a child than adult women do, did you consider you were nothing but someone else's possession at the time? I'm guessing you may well read this as me saying "it can be quite nice to be someone's possession, they should stop complaining". If so, please re-read.

Also, maybe part of the problem is in terms of seeing everything in terms of oppression and privilege. These are again rather black and white terms that seem to polarise thinking. It doesn't seem that ridiculous an idea to suggest that responsibility can bring burden, but if you say that the privilege of having responsibilities is a form of oppression then it becomes ridiculous. But that's because you insist on seeing it through that filter, rather than having a more nuanced view that is capable of recognising multiple factors.

For instance, would you say that caring for a very sick or invalid relative is some sort of "privilege" just because you hold all the power and they are subject to your will? And no I'm not drawing an exact parallel, just pointing out that having responsibility is not to be automatically assumed to be some incredible privilege that everyone desires or needs to consider themselves a complete person.

 

[Senethro]

Don't recall ever claiming no men wanted to war. I said it's not fair or correct to just say "men" decided something with zero nuance or recognition of power structures or anything else. Holding all men culpable for the decisions of the few in power simply for sharing genitals is wrong.

Ugh, its not about proving culpability and making you write apologetics for men.

That paragraph about showing an easily identifiable injustice and relating it to our situation (because it is frequently directly related to our situation, especially if you live in a political entity with continuous 500 year history or more) because you deny every thing problem in the present.

Not at all, as I said it was merely an example. History is littered with powerful and influential women who you are whitewashing out of existence. You're also completely ignoring the power and influence of women within the family structure which must surely have a very large influence on the shape of society at large. I would propose that this influence is not negligible (is it negligible in your family, or most families you are aware of?). Sorry but just blankly asserting that no women had any power ever is as ludicrous a statement as you think mine is.

Oh, the women were there all right, no matter how frequently they were written out. But you're pointing out these obvious facts in a sulky tone that basically says women didn't have it that bad, really. Political rights and participation in all levels of society aren't everything you know.

If you insist on constructing rats that are formed from the most glib and black and white interpretations of what other people are actually saying then it's no wonder you can smell them.

Like what you did in your immediately previous paragraph? Pfft.

This addresses absolutely nothing I said about ignoring biological or other influencing factors and assuming the thought process was entirely arbitrary. I'm not sure what point you thought I was making that you are trying to address here. Also, "women aren't allowed to own property" is a rather sweeping statement to apply to all civilisations throughout history.

There was nothing to address. You told this silly Just-So story about why things were. Women weren't warriors men are strong and women bear children blah blah. Now, maybe that made their societies survive so that we could look back on them, but to the people living at the time there can be any number of cultural reasons for doing what you do.

My own silly little story about spear ownership was supposed to show how if a person lacks some legal rights (as imposed on them by society) then indeed they are restricted in the societal roles they can perform. Who does the enforcement of the restrictions? Primarily priests and soldiers. Men. Like the contemporary religious police in Saudi Arabia.

Don't write apologetics. I'm not blaming you personally. I'm just saying many of our current societies have a nasty lingering hangover from those days and even only 20 years ago a bunch of male politicians were voting against Equal Rights Acts. History matters and trends subside, not end abruptly.

Well you can lol all you like, but if you're not actually going to respond then there's not much I can do with that. Simply asserting "you are wrong" is no better than "I am right"

If, for example, there are a lot of homeless men on the streets then discussing how and why the historical approach to gender roles has potentially led to that situation developing is all very interesting from an academic point of view, but is of no use in solving the actual issue. The first step is not always to try and engineer some sort of society-wide change in attitude. Sometimes it can be as simple as allocating time and resources to just help people out.

Please explain why you find that so utterly lol-worthy.

I wasn't lolling at that, I was lolling at you saying history don't matter. Had another little chuckle right now.

Those issues are definitely worth dealing with but they won't be dealt with through being anti-feminist and constructing this bizarre alternate reading of history where men are vying for equal victim status.

No good discussion is going to come out of anything if you insist you are saying red is red while the opponent is saying red is blue. I realise that sometimes people are just going to be immovable on a certain point, but really what is the use of basically saying "it's pointless talking to you as long as you continue to disagree with me, because I am right"?

Yah. Hmmm.

Litmust test: When did sexism end?

 

[Senethro]

No-one has absolute freedom and control over their lives. This doesn't mean that we are non-people or posessions. You had far fewer rights and freedoms as a child than adult women do, did you consider you were nothing but someone else's possession at the time? I'm guessing you may well read this as me saying "it can be quite nice to be someone's possession, they should stop complaining". If so, please re-read.

Also, maybe part of the problem is in terms of seeing everything in terms of oppression and privilege. These are again rather black and white terms that seem to polarise thinking. It doesn't seem that ridiculous an idea to suggest that responsibility can bring burden, but if you say that the privilege of having responsibilities is a form of oppression then it becomes ridiculous. But that's because you insist on seeing it through that filter, rather than having a more nuanced view that is capable of recognising multiple factors.

For instance, would you say that caring for a very sick or invalid relative is some sort of "privilege" just because you hold all the power and they are subject to your will? And no I'm not drawing an exact parallel, just pointing out that having responsibility is not to be automatically assumed to be some incredible privilege that everyone desires or needs to consider themselves a complete person.

You sound extremely reasonable and moderate here but remember that people hung the aristocrats from the lampposts to gain a measure of self-determination. It is a very big deal. Often not reasonable at all.

People get downright unruly over this stuff, and I'm not terribly sympathetic to the master that says you shouldn't covet his political rights because they are such a burden.

Boo freaken hoo. Tiny violins all round.

 

[Samson]

these days everyone is (in theory) free enough to fulfill their potential

One question I've oft asked but rarely receive a reply to is that if this is true (and the most surprising people assert that it is) then how to explain gender disparity in the top level of... ummm... anything really. Lets limit it to politics, business/management, sciences.

Noone need answer this now, I'm sure a more relevant time to discuss it will come later.

I do not believe the statement that I have quoted above (I think that is what you were talking about), but I can comment on A reason that there is a gender disparity in the top levels of most areas of business. I think men do more hours ([EDIT] I should clarify, I think there is a group of men who work very hard to get to the top, and this group is much larger than the group of women who work very hard to get to the top). To get to the top you need to be good AND work very hard. I know quite a few people who work 10 - 14 hours a day, 6 - 7 days a week, and they are all men. I know quite a few people who work 3 - 4 days a week since they became parents, and they are all women. Then there is maternity leave, the legal disparity I brought up above. For any high flying career, but especially in business were it is mostly about maintaining your contacts, and most important work is done in smoky rooms over lots of alcohol (or certainly used to be) it is going to be very hard to do that, have children and take 6 - 12 months off per child. I am not sure what the law can do to change this. I do not think making it harder for women to take time off is a good thing, and making it easier for men will probably not change this completely (though it will help, and should be done).

 

[Narz]

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

Men.

Yes, I'm sure they had to hold the women back from going out to risk their lives.

 

[Narz]

Here's a hint; alot of armies, headed often by males, decided that women shouldn't join, it's only recently that women could join national armies.

Here's a hint, people do what's best for their survival. Male armies are going to do better than female armies.

Cultures who's very survival depended on their ability to hunt, gather, farm & defend themselves efficiently didn't have time or energy to worry about fair or unfair, training men to use weapons and women to gather simply makes more sense.

Now we live in a culture where people can do what that what. So be happy about that. You can be a seamstress and find a tough girlfriend to stick up for you but back in the day stricter gender roles made more sense.

 

[Senethro]

Yes, I'm sure they had to hold the women back from going out to risk their lives.

War service was a path to citizenship in many societies. Or adulthood. Its a really obvious example of systematic oppression to be excluded from that.

Here's a hint, people do what's best for their survival.

Heh. Heheheheheh.

Nah brah.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Ugh, its not about proving culpability and making you write apologetics for men.

Kind of is though. Saying "Who was responsible for this? Men." is not only quite clearly about culpability, it's also laying the blame at the feet of an entire gender, rather than the specific individuals in question, who may indeed have been largely (if not actually exclusively) men, but this doesn't make all men culpable by association.

Oh, the women were there all right, no matter how frequently they were written out. But you're pointing out these obvious facts in a sulky tone that basically says women didn't have it that bad, really. Political rights and participation in all levels of society aren't everything you know.

They're not nothing either. And if anyone disagrees with you do you always automatically assume it's in a sulkly tone?

Who does the enforcement of the restrictions? Primarily priests and soldiers. Men.

See. Exactly what I was saying. Pointing out that they are men is not relevant unless you are trying to (unfairly) spread that blame equally to ALL men. If you're not then leaving it at "priests and soldiers" would be enough as it's those particular classes of citizen who are responsible, not the entire gender that primarily constitutes those classes.

I wasn't lolling at that, I was lolling at you saying history don't matter. Had another little chuckle right now.

Well you can chuckle away all you like. I can't really be held responsible if you insist on taking things massively out of context though, especially when I've made the context incredibly clear. I was going to repeat exactly what I said and meant once more, but given that I've already said it twice and you're still reducing it to such a glibly inaccurate statement there seems very little point.

Those issues are definitely worth dealing with but they won't be dealt with through being anti-feminist and constructing this bizarre alternate reading of history where men are vying for equal victim status.

The only reason anti-feminism keeps coming into it is because feminism keeps being brought to bear. And as the whole raison detre of feminism is that "women are downtrodden wholesale by men", to paraphrase, then there seems as though there's no alternative than to fight against that ideology in order to make any progress whatsoever. But even that doesn't work because then everything gets pointlessly sidelined into discussions like this one, where we're discussing nothing but shield maidens (or lack thereof) for no other reason than "history is important" or something.

Yah. Hmmm.

Litmust test: When did sexism end?

Irrelevant question.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

You sound extremely reasonable and moderate here but remember that people hung the aristocrats from the lampposts to gain a measure of self-determination. It is a very big deal. Often not reasonable at all.

People get downright unruly over this stuff, and I'm not terribly sympathetic to the master that says you shouldn't covet his political rights because they are such a burden.

Boo freaken hoo. Tiny violins all round.

If you see all men throughout history as masters then you're missing something I would think.

 

[Narz]

War service was a path to citizenship in many societies. Or adulthood. Its a really obvious example of systematic oppression to be excluded from that.

Most traditional cultures had rights of passage for women as well. The rights and responsibilities were not always balanced, no one would argue that. Varied heavily from culture to culture, many much for egalitarian than others.

Heh. Heheheheheh.

Nah brah.

Well not soft modern people like yourself, you can belief and act however you like and are protected. But judging cultures of the past based on your own soft life is silly. May as well call the Spartans child abusers because they were so harsh. If we could go back in a time machine and impose modern sensibilities on our forefathers it's likely we would make ourselves extinct.

 

[Narz]

If you see all men throughout history as masters then you're missing something I would think.

Iirc, something like 80% of women from a few hundred years back left desendents vs 30 or 40% of men (someone can look this up & correct my figures).

Not to say producing offspring is the measure of quality of life but just shows that your average schmuck guy had it much harder than today where even the crappiest guy van probably manage to reproduce if he tries hard enough.

 

[Senethro]

If you see all men throughout history as masters then you're missing something I would think.

Not all men were masters but the path to mastery was open to them and upheld generally by men. Not much quibbling there. Still some opposition to sharing in fact.

Irrelevant question.

TBH the only relevant question. The rest of your post can be explained by this terrible dread fear that to admit inequality ever having existed will invoke the spectre of privilege.

Hence all the "women didn't have it that bad really".

 

[Senethro]

The only reason anti-feminism keeps coming into it is because feminism keeps being brought to bear. And as the whole raison detre of feminism is that "women are downtrodden wholesale by men", to paraphrase, then there seems as though there's no alternative than to fight against that ideology in order to make any progress whatsoever. But even that doesn't work because then everything gets pointlessly sidelined into discussions like this one, where we're discussing nothing but shield maidens (or lack thereof) for no other reason than "history is important" or something.

Wherein Manfred admits viewing gender equality as a zero sum game in which feminism must be opposed in order to advance men.

Yep.

 

[warpus]

Why are we talking about women?

 

[Wolfbeckett]

Wherein Manfred admits viewing gender equality as a zero sum game in which feminism must be opposed in order to advance men.

Yep.

It doesn't have to be as a matter of course, but it often is. For example, one of the things that men's rights advocates often complain about (rightly) is that when domestic violence calls are made to the police, the man is presumed to be the guilty party nearly 100% of the time, in spite of the fact that studies show that domestic violence is a roughly 50/50 split. The reason the man is presumed guilty almost all of the time is because domestic abuse programs and law enforcement training for these situations are based on the Duluth Model, which is based on feminist patriarchy theory. In practice, there is no way to correct this imbalance without overturning the Duluth Model, and there's no way to overturn the Duluth Model without criticizing the feminist theory that it's based off of in the first place.

So, yes, in some areas it is a zero sum game, because for some of the issues that they talk about there is no way forward that doesn't start with criticizing aspects feminist theory, which of course many feminists see as an attack on all of feminism whether or not it is.

 

[Senethro]

Why are we talking about women?

See the post immediately prior to yours. Anti-feminism is a commonly held belief by internet MRAs.