The Rights of Men

[JollyRoger]

Sorry, but this is a rather gross misrepresentation of what I actually said in the other thread, which is a bit disappointing given how many times I reiterated the point to try and make it clear. Also, isn't that a bit personal attacky and off-tone for an RD thread?

For those who care, here are the posts in question where I allegedly expressed a passion for opening up a men's rights thread by bashing women. I believe that the opinion I was expressing is quite reasonable, that I made it reasonably clearly, and that it illustrates no such passion, but I'll let you judge my words for yourself:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=14047725&postcount=316

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=14049044&postcount=362

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=14050063&postcount=364

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=14050580&postcount=370

The main point of my post was to demonstrate the standard has been put out there that a thread starter can start a thread in any manner he chooses and expect that the objectionable parts of the OP will be ignored in favor of the so-called real topic of the thread. I thought it was interesting that the complaint registered here was bias in the presentation rather than getting down to discuss the topic of men's rights.

 

[Lord of Elves]

That's never going to happen because it's not normal. Men and women evolved to behave and think specific ways. I don't have a problem with people that do not fit into those general roles, but to think that you are going to normalize what is an outlier in society is naive.

What was desirable and natural in "nature" is pretty irrelevant. These behaviors are not evolutionarally conditioned. They are environmentally conditioned. Admittedly, the two are pretty similar, but the difference is like climate v. weather.

We have approached a point in the post-industrial, developed world where the environment is almost entirely controlled by humans. Eventually, what is "natural" and "evolved" become subordinated to what people feel and want. You can debate whether other cultures' interpretations of gender and gender roles are somehow sickly or perverse, but those groups of people definitely felt them to be ordained by nature, too.

At the end of the day we are trying to apply the values and expectations of a pre-industrial society to people living in a post-industrial society. This is the source of all our cultural angst and frustration. Many people see no reason to submit to a moral code that has little bearing on their lives. Human behavior is just taking the path of least resistance, as it has always done.

In terms of what people do in their private lives, when they aren't harming others our better nature should tell us not to harm them.

 

[JollyRoger]

It used to be not normal for a married woman to have independent property rights or even property rights co-equal with her husband. The first volume of the U.S. Reports is littered with cases over coverture.

 

[civman110]

What was desirable and natural in "nature" is pretty irrelevant. These behaviors are not evolutionarally conditioned. They are environmentally conditioned. Admittedly, the two are pretty similar, but the difference is like climate v. weather.

It's not irrelevant and they are not environmentally conditioned. There are general rules and there are universal rules. While, "generally" women prefer to raise their children and the man prefers to work outside of the home that is not "universally" true.

I don't have a problem with a woman working and a man staying home if that's their choice, but the truth of the matter is that "generally" women are more nurturing than men and have a higher degree of emotional intelligence which makes it much easier for them to raise children. Men have their own unique skill sets too.

We have approached a point in the post-industrial, developed world where the environment is almost entirely controlled by humans. Eventually, what is "natural" and "evolved" become subordinated to what people feel and want. You can debate whether other cultures' interpretations of gender and gender roles are somehow sickly or perverse, but those groups of people definitely felt them to be ordained by nature, too.

Human nature doesn't change. Even how people view things like race is mostly subconscious, or instinctual. Instinctually people are tribal and feel more comfortable among groups of people who are similar in appearance if they do not know them. Behavioural scientists have been studying this kind of stuff for decades now.

It's not a "social construct." Society is mainly a reflection of human behaviour. Not everything, but when you get down to the fundamentals like "the family" and "male and female relationships" that is mostly instinctual and operates on the subconscious level.

At the end of the day we are trying to apply the values and expectations of a pre-industrial society to people living in a post-industrial society. This is the source of all our cultural angst and frustration. Many people see no reason to submit to a moral code that has little bearing on their lives. Human behavior is just taking the path of least resistance, as it has always done.

Human nature has not changed in over 100,000 years.

By your own logic, "the path of least resistance" wouldn't be for the majority of the population to become like the outliers of society. It would be for the outliers to conform to the social group, but at this day in age we don't expect people to do that. Mostly everyone agrees the outliers can make their own choices, they just don't believe that the outliers get to dictate how society should function because that is crazy.

 

[Lord of Elves]

That's bogus. Human nature has not changed.

Of course. Human nature hasn't changed. And there are plenty of examples throughout history of people, individual and groups, who didn't conform to your "general rules."

We killed a lot of them.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

We shouldn't expect that all people will be convinced just by nice words alone.

Sounds pretty terroristy to me.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

[Citation Needed]

Also, define "normal", a 100+ years ago it was normal for women not to vote or even work, 100+ years ago things were very different, normal is relative and isn't static.

you realise that 100+ years ago it was normal for men not to vote as well right?

 

[civman110]

Of course. Human nature hasn't changed. And there are plenty of examples throughout history of people, individual and groups, who didn't conform to your "general rules."

We killed a lot of them.

*I edited my post, I just realized I misread something.

---

Less than 3% of the population has never fundamentally changed a society in the manner you are suggesting.

Basically my opinion is that people are free to do whatever they want, but if you are going to engage in behaviour that is largely fringe behaviour the general population it is never going to be consider it normal - because it isn't. The majority of people behave in a totally different manner. That doesn't mean you have to stop doing what you are doing it just means that it's always going to be considered different.

Because I recognize fringe behaviour as being different from myself and most other people (which it is) doesn't mean I hate those people, but it also doesn't mean I am going to change.

 

[JollyRoger]

1% practically runs society.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

The main point of my post was to demonstrate the standard has been put out there that a thread starter can start a thread in any manner he chooses and expect that the objectionable parts of the OP will be ignored in favor of the so-called real topic of the thread. I thought it was interesting that the complaint registered here was bias in the presentation rather than getting down to discuss the topic of men's rights.

You were the one that thought that criticism of a woman was objectionable, merely on the grounds that she was a woman. I never said any such thing. Nor did I say that if that happened that it wouldn't be the "real" topic of the thread. I also didn't say that the OP of this particular thread was objectionable, just that it seemed to want to frame the debate in a manner that was restrictive and counterproductive to its stated aims.

 

[civman110]

1% practically runs society.

And all those people are largely adherents to the majority of society. The only difference is they are wealthy, but nice strawman fallacy.

 

[JollyRoger]

I also didn't say that the OP of this particular thread was objectionable, just that it seemed to want to frame the debate in a manner that was restrictive and counterproductive to its stated aims.

Which is the same point I have been making about the other thread.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

If you consider making basement/virgin jokes to be making a point yes. I didn't tell jackelgull that if he continues to start threads with OPs that I don't like that I will continue to mock him and treat him with contempt though.

I would also disagree that starting a thread by talking about a particular incident in a way that you don't like is the same as starting a thread by laying down ground rules about how the discussion should be framed and outlining some "self-evident truths" that should actually be up for debate.

(although, as I've said, I realise jackelgull wasn't actually doing this and apologised for being overly critical)

 

[Narz]

LoE, most higher mammals have gender roles & gendered behavior.

Division of labor on sex grounds will always be with us. It's not really a bad thing if more men want to drive forklifts and more women want to be interior designers.

As long as those who go against the grain get equal respect.

 

[warpus]

LoE, most higher mammals have gender roles & gendered behavior.

They obviously exist due to simple biological facts, but that doesn't mean that we have to cram the colour pink down girl's throats and the colour blue down boy's throats. For example. There is a fine balance possible here, and right now we are nowhere near.

 

[Narz]

I dislike pink & plan to sign my daughter up for martial arts this year. But it's very plain to see as a parent that she has many feminine characteristics and this is not a problem for me. Girls and boys don't have to be represented everywhere equally for them to be treated equally. What are we gonna do, force more women to be construction workers?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

They obviously exist due to simple biological facts, but that doesn't mean that we have to cram the colour pink down girl's throats and the colour blue down boy's throats. For example. There is a fine balance possible here, and right now we are nowhere near.

No, but it does mean that the path of least resistance is always likely to lead to men being men and women being women the majority of the time. Those who don't, or don't want to, fit into that mold should be allowed to do so, but I think there will always be some level of social pressure to conform because I believe that is also inherent to our nature, and that this will always lead to some (hopefully) low level of intolerance and bigotry towards the "weirdos". It's not admirable or something to not fight against, but nor do I believe it's a realistic goal to stamp it out entirely. It's not as though we've ever been able to stamp out violence, murder, bullying etc in any other context either. These things will just inevitably continue.

 

[warpus]

I dislike pink & plan to sign my daughter up for martial arts this year. But it's very plain to see as a parent that she has many feminine characteristics and this is not a problem for me. Girls and boys don't have to be represented everywhere equally for them to be treated equally. What are we gonna do, force more women to be construction workers?

Of course not, but we also don't have to tell them that "girls walk like this" and "boys walk like this" when they're growing up.

 

[jackelgull]

No, but it does mean that the path of least resistance is always likely to lead to men being men and women being women the majority of the time. Those who don't, or don't want to, fit into that mold should be allowed to do so, but I think there will always be some level of social pressure to conform because I believe that is also inherent to our nature, and that this will always lead to some (hopefully) low level of intolerance and bigotry towards the "weirdos". It's not admirable or something to not fight against, but nor do I believe it's a realistic goal to stamp it out entirely. It's not as though we've ever been able to stamp out violence, murder, bullying etc in any other context either. These things will just inevitably continue.

You're partly right on that, but that doesn't mean we can't expand "what it means to be a man" and "what it means to be a women" to looser levels?

And if such things as bullying are inevitably going to continue, it doesn't mean there shouldn't be consequences for it. I know you never said the last part, my point is that even if such things are inevitable, doesn't mean that a fatalistic attitude has to be taken towards them, just an understanding that we have to teach the next generation better, and hope for the best.

 

[bhavv]

Acknowledging that male priviledge exists isn't biased, it's an acknowledgement that males get certain priviledges or don't need to work as hard as women to be gain the same level of respect or acceptance in cetain roles.

No one is going to go to a man and complain about how he dresses and how he is somehow bringing about negative attention in the same manner women are often addressed, for example and if a man is harassed, neither is that going to be the first thing said "oh well you were dressed in that way... you should have known...".

Except that none of this exists in the developed world.