Rostov

October 31st this year will mark three years since I took up running, and since then I've completed couch to 5k, pushed on to 10k, then a half marathon, and last month my first full marathon. I'm currently resting after my marathon and after getting a slight heel problem, as well as tapering for a half marathon at the weekend. But my usual training schedule in normal times is: Tuesday - speedwork with my running club, plus another 5k or so running slowly to/from training Thursday - 10k with hills and a few short sprints Weekend - long slow run. Distance depending on training stage, but generally 20k+ This was more or less my schedule since I got to the point I could do 5k comfortably - one speedwork, one standard run (which was 5k, now 10k), and one long slow run where I'd gradually increase distance. My advice (for what it's worth) for newer runners is.... 1) Don't do it unless you enjoy it. If you don't enjoy it, it'll last only as long as your willpower does. Find something else you do enjoy. 2) Get proper running shoes that fit you. I reckon your running shoes should be the single most comfortable pair of shoes you own. 3) You're probably doing some of the hardest running you'll ever do right now - physically and mentally. The first bit is the hardest. Going from 0k-5k is far, far, far tougher than going from 5k to 10k. And once you've done that, it's just training, practice, time, avoiding injury, and how far you want to run. 4) You don't have to half-kill yourself in every training session. Don't overdo it. "No pain, no gain" might be trueish, but "more pain, more gain" isn't true. Nicely tired is fine. Save the pain for race day! 4) Don't worry about what other, more experienced runners are thinking about you. Firstly, chances are that they're not thinking about you. Secondly, if they are thinking about you, chances are they think you're awesome. A few weeks before my marathon I was running in my local park and there were a lot of runners out there putting the finishing touches to their marathon or half marathon training. But the still-slightly-overweight-guy I saw running up that hill pouring with sweat was working harder than any of us, and it took more guts for him to be out running than the various gazelles and greyhounds smoothly bounding around the lake.

This is really tough. I think I recognise the kind of stress that you're talking about, though in my case it was about a work situation rather than about a particular person. If it's what I think it is, it's a bit like a whirlpool or black hole... you can be minding your own business when suddenly, for some reason or for none, you find yourself thinking about the stressor and being pulled in... thinking about it more and more and more and re-experiencing all of the pain and fury all over again as you're sucked back into the vortex. For me, I could feel it happening, could feel myself being pulled in and pulled under, and often knew it was happening but just wasn't able to prevent it or stop myself. Shifting mindsets and stopping this happening is tough. Time helps, obviously. One thing that helped me was realising that what I was stressed and angry about wasn't personal - it was personal in the sense that it happened to me, but it wasn't personal in that those involved planned it and designed it to cause me harm - I was collateral damage and happened to be in the way. Realising that helped. Another thing that helped - as time passed - was coming to see that my life could and would be better, that I could cope with change, and had that resilience and adaptability. I don't know where I heard the phrase "the best revenge is living well", but it helped me. Can you focus on the good friends that you do have, and their virtues and loyalty and the relationship you have with them? Have you tried mindfulness? I undertook a course earlier this year which was interesting, and although I'm not practising at the moment I've always got the option to return to it if things get tough. As part of the course we discussed destructive thought patterns which lead to us dwelling on things which make us stressed/sad/angry. One image that was used was of waiting at a bus stop..... the thoughts will always come and go, but it's up to us whether to get on that bus and stay with that thought. The aim is to not get on the bus... to accept it and let it pass without getting on board. Our facilitator also shared this poem, which was interesting.... http://mymeditativemoments.com/realization-for-change/ Unless I'm entirely wrong and just projecting my experiences onto you, in which case apologies, this is a very tough place to be in when you're fixated on something bad that happened. But time helps, and I think there are ways to start to change your thought processes. But it's not easy.

And..... done it! First full marathon, 3:39:34. Loved it!

I think the benefits are the same as in the couch to 5k programme - putting in those walking breaks allows runners a bit of recovery time to run further/longer overall. I haven't seen the programme, but presumably it builds in a similar way, with that kind of interval approach on some runs and run x far/time without stopping in others. I think when you get to the stage you're at now it's tempting to see those walking breaks as something you don't need any more, perhaps because when you started you needed them to get your breath back, which you don't need any more even though the rest might be welcome. But even if you don't need them to get your breath back and recover in the same way, it does allow you to run further gradually - it's not weakness or cheating. Some runners continue to use walk/run strategies like that to build time and distance well into half marathon and marathon training, and even use it in races. Think I'd always advocate the C25K system (and probably only that system) for new runners, but I think options open out a bit once you reach 5k, especially if you're doing it in 30 mins which is a more than decent pace for a new or newish runner. So you could continue the programme, or you could look to other options/programmes for running further and faster. For example, one alternative would be to have three different kinds of run each week: 1 x standard run. Run 5k at a decent pace. 1 x speed work. Run less than 5k, but run it fast. Intervals is a good way of doing this - run quick for a bit, then walk/jog, repeat. 1 x long slow run. Run *slowly*, but run further than 5k/30 mins, gradually increasing the distance each week towards 10k. The key thing here is running slowly, and if you're doing 5k in 30 mins there's definitely scope to slow down. In fact, your programme might be working on these or similar principles - not sure. My own training is still based on those three basic categories of run - one standard (sometimes with hills and a few short sprints), one speedwork, one long slow run. I think it's important to build distance/time on your feet slowly. If you increase either too much you risk injury, and I think you also risk falling out of love with it if it stops being fun. Certainly I wouldn't go straight from running 30 mins non-stop to running 40 mins non-stop. I'd probably add no more than 1k or 5 mins or so per week and build it slowly, even if you think you could go further/longer.

Dilnad's right... it's a question of what you'd like to do next. There's nothing wrong with just keeping doing what you're doing if you're enjoying it. And congratulations! Something you might want to try is to vary your running a bit. Rather than doing 5k each time, you could look at doing speed work or hill work for one of your runs, a longer slower run for another, and then a standard 5k. The speed or hill work will help you run faster for longer, and the long slow run will increase your stamina and endurance, and both will help you run 5k faster. My experience was that it's much harder to go from couch to 5k than from 5k to 10k, and if you wanted to you could just increase your long slow run by a little bit each week and see how that feels - but it's important to slow down. If you were to decide to train for a 10k race, this wouldn't require you to run 10k each time you go for a run. You could do that, but I think for a first 10k race you'd be better off doing a 5k training run, a long slow run building towards 10k (some people don't actually run the full 10k until race day), and speed work and/or hill work.

Congrats on your progress and achievements so far! I suspect it'll be very hard for anyone - other than perhaps a running coach who's seen you run - to tell you what your potential is at this early stage. But at 20 you've certainly got time on your side and a lot of scope to improve. I guess a big factor will be how much you're willing to commit to hit that target in terms of training, time, diet, lifestyle etc. But that's not a question you can answer yet. One perhaps obvious thing to say is that improvements do tail off after a certain point.... they don't just continue at the same rate. When you're new to a sport you can make big improvements quite quickly, and it came as a bit of a shock to my ego when I reached a point with my running that I was no longer smashing my PB every Parkrun, and sometimes not even getting close to matching it. Jfreaksho is right about genetics - ultimately it's about being the best version of you that you can be, taking into account other life plans/commitments/aspirations/goals. Looking at elite athletes, it does look like there are particular body types that are better suited to different distances, but I'm sure you've seen people of all shapes and sizes at Parkrun running great times. I think that height isn't really much of an issue - runners aren't fast because they take long strides, but because they take a lot of them quickly. And although most elite 5k runners look tall and rangy and greyhound-like, I reckon short and slight (or short and rangy) may well be "next best". Have you thought about joining a running club?

Calorie counting really worked for me - helped me from size 42" trousers down to 34". I used calorie counting in two main ways.... one to keep score, and the other to educate myself about the calorie content of different foods and drinks. As regards keeping score, I wasn't sure if you meant a calorie deficit of 500 per day or 500 per week or over two weeks. If it's 500 a day, that seems high to me. I remember when using MyFitnessPal it would calculate a calorie target for me and it was always gratifying to undershoot it and see a nice green figure, because it felt like I was winning and doing even better than the minimum. But I think it's possible to take this too far and try to do too much, too quickly. For one thing, it's a lot more willpower and effort to resist temptation if you're permanently hungry, and I've heard it said that running too big a calorie deficit can actually delay weight loss because the body thinks that food is scarce and so consumes less - starvation mode. I'm not sure how true this is - heard different accounts. But I think my advice would be to trust the system and try to follow the target you've been set, more or less, and undershoot a little if it makes you happy. I know it made me happy! As regards education, I used calorie counting to look for (relatively) painless easy wins in terms of swapping out high calorie for lower calorie food. It's amazing the cumulative difference that this can make. Armed with this knowledge, now that I've reached my target weight (more or less), I can just use that knowledge and not bother too much about calorie counting. It's become sustainable. And I think if you want your weight loss to be sustainable and not just put the weight back on again after you finish, those lessons need to be permanently learned and embedded. If I want to wear 34" trousers, I need not only to lose the weight, but also to learn how to live/eat/exercise like someone with a 34" waist. If I lose the weight but don't learn the lesson, it's only a matter of time before my jeans get too tight. My other tip as part of education would be to find food that's good filling-ness value for the calories. I identified bananas, soups (especially tomato soup), omelettes/scrambled eggs as being particularly good, but probably not all at the same time.

If you're interested in other people's experiences of their first half marathons, have a read of this thread. A few of us posted there about our training, various other updates, contributions from more experienced runners, a bit of chit chat, and then some accounts (including mine) of how our various halves went. http://rebellion.nerdfitness.com/index.php?/topic/50418-training-for-my-first-half-marathon/ Where are you at the moment in terms of running - experience, distance, training routines etc

I'm no expert on running form, but I did attend a workshop recently about better form, and I think mine has improved as a result. Think my suggestion would be to try taking shorter strides. A lot of people try to run by taking long strides, but actually shorter, quicker strides are more efficient and faster. Shorter strides mean you have to land on the ball of the foot or fall over. And yep, it does hurt the calves to start with. But I wonder if your shin plain is shin splints, in which case changing your running form might not be the answer.... http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/shin-splints/Pages/Introduction.aspx

I wouldn't call it "levelling down". Someone very wise once said that a half marathon isn't "half" of anything, and a 10k is still double the distance you've run before (if I've understood correctly). It'll still be a terrific achievement - believe me, my first half marathon didn't feel any less because it wasn't a full one, and running my first 10k race didn't feel any less awesome because it wasn't a half. I know what you mean about audio books and running - I listen to podcasts, and catching up on those during my weekly long slow run running alongside canals and rivers is glorious - at least until the latter stages and I start to hurt! It's wonderful to run, great to have the time to listen, and to have that time to myself. And sometimes I remember a time when all this would have felt impossible. My own training plan was relatively simple. I ran three times a week - one would be short and quick, one would be standard, and one would be long and slow. "Short and sharp" , sprinting and recovering, or perhaps taking a hilly route. "Standard" would probably be 5k at a steady pace. "Long and slow" would probably start at 5k, and then gradually increase by 1k or so each week. I took this all the way to 10k so I ran the distance in training before the race, but I don't think this is required. I still use that broad structure - short and sharp is now a club training night with drills, standard is 10k with hills and a couple of short sprints, and long and slow is now up to 25km(15.5 miles). I'm going to take this to 20 miles in preparation for the marathon. I probably need to add a fourth run in there somewhere - probably a short recovery run after the long slow run. BTW, I hope my earlier post didn't come off as dismissive of "bucket list" running and runners. That was absolutely not my intention - it takes a huge amount of courage and dedication to start on one of these training plans from fairly low or non-existent base, and frankly a lot more courage than I have. And of course, a lot of those kinds of runners raise a fortune for good causes precisely because it's out of character for them, or at least a brand new challenge.

I think my advice - for what it's worth - would be to look to the 10k this time. That's not to say that I think the half marathon is impossible for you, but it's always going to be there as an option for the future if you want it. I suppose a lot might depend on how you see your relationship with running going in the future. For some people, running a (half) marathon is a bucket list item - to be ticked off a list and then move on to something else. For others, running is going to be a leisure pursuit that lasts a lifetime - perhaps not always races, perhaps not always long distances, but as a constant part of a healthy lifestyle. If it's a 'bucket list', I'll leave others to advise about how to train up in time. But if it's going to be a constant part of your life, I'd be tempted to focus on the 10k. That way you can build up more slowly, take fewer injury risks, and run that race stronger and faster than you could a half marathon - and probably enjoy it a hell of a lot more too. And be ready to get back to your training/running routine in the following days. The danger, I think, is either getting injured in training, or getting worried or anxious and stopping enjoying or, or having a miserable time running the HM, even if you finish. I think it's better to run 10k and feel the way you do now after running 5k than run a HM and struggle, and perhaps even fall out of love with running. The half marathon will still be there in the future if you want it. Another factor to consider, of course, is the weather - not sure where you are in the world, but where I am a July race is going to be a lot hotter than a May race, which presents its own challenges over longer distances.

I think timed intervals will help... you'll know you're nearly probably sort of there, but without knowing exactly and so feeling the need to speed up to get to finish quicker. I think if you're running quickly because of 1, the main thing it to realise it, and (easier said than done) don't panic. If you're on couch to 5k, you're on a programme that works, and even though some people need to repeat a week, by the time that happens you should be getting more confident. Trust yourself, your fitness, and the programme - you will get there, you will complete the run phase you're on because you've completed everything that went before it, and you don't need to panic-rush. Tell yourself that if you run out of energy, any speed above a walk is fine.

For couch to 5k I'd say there's virtually no such thing as running too slowly - the aim is to cover the distance, not to cover it quickly, and not to kill yourself in the process. Something I struggled with a bit at the start was the idea that if it didn't hurt, it didn't count - the whole "no pain, no gain" philosophy - and that if I didn't finished my run exhausted I was wasting my time/cheating myself/whatever. Actually the point of C25k should - I think - to finish each session nicely tired, but not exhausted and certainly not half dead. But I know what you mean about getting sucked into running faster and faster - I still do that today, and I generally run "negative splits" - running the second half faster than the first. I guess my question for you would be why you think it happens - is it from a place of: 1) worry/anxiety - a stressed form of running that has nerves jangling, alarm bells ringing, and sirens blaring in your head, your energy levels dropping alarmingly, and you run faster because you want to be finished sooner so you can rest; or 2) comfort - you're enjoying running, feeling good, in the moment, and gradually the pace drifts upwards and you realise belatedly that you've not left enough in the tank? I think a lot of new runners get (1), because it's unfamiliar. But for me there were two wonderful moments - one when you realise you can just run slowly but sustainably. Not for ever, but for a short time, and for long enough for current purposes. Your energy is dropping, but dropping slowly, and it's not scary. The second moment was when I realised I could rest while running - could run up a hill, continue to run down it, and get my breath back while doing so. I reckon at week 4-5 of C25K you're probably close to the first of those moments. But week 4-5 is also the stage at which some people ought to do a week twice if it doesn't feel comfortable. One option to try is to set yourself a time target, but one to exceed, not to beat. I also wonder whether running on a track might also have an effect - if you know exactly where you can stop running, there is a temptation to run too fast towards that point.

I'd agree with that. In my training for half marathons I rarely run two days in a row. I might need to step this up a bit with full marathon training, but even then I don't intend to do two hard runs in consecutive days. I've had ankle problems so I'm particularly cautious. I know some people do run every day but alternate gentler 'recovery' runs. But I think if you're at 6-7k medium pace with 5 weeks until race day, you're in a great position and just need to keep gradually increasing distance. I'd say running every day rather than 3-4 times a week will just increase your injury risk. That's especially true if you're new or newish to running, even if you're otherwise pretty fit - you don't tell us much about your starting point. What I tend to do in terms of training over three runs per week is do one run involving speed (intervals perhaps), one steady over medium distance, and one longer slower run. I've then gradually built up the longer slower run over time.

This. While it's no cure for self consciousness, being aware of the "spotlight effect" has made a real difference to me. Essentially, we're the centre of our own lives, so we tend to drastically overestimate how much attention other people pay to us - as if we're permanently in the spotlight. https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/between-you-and-me/201311/have-you-fallen-prey-the-spotlight-effect

"How are we all progressing towards our running goals?" he asked, slightly smugly, pointing downwards at the half marathon PB target crossed off in his signature.

I'd second the recommendations for Freakonomics, Hardcore Histories (especially the A bomb episode, and the one about the Munster Anabaptist rebellion), and Welcome to Nightvale. F and HH you can start wherever you like, but I think with WtN it's worth starting from the beginning. Amazed no-one's mentioned Serial yet, though perhaps that goes without saying. Fascinating, notwithstanding worries about real life crime as entertainment. Also... Invisibilia, a series of shows about invisible forces that affect human behaviour. The BBC have a lot of good podcasts - I'd particularly recommend BBC World Service Documentaries, and popular science show The Infinite Monkey Cage (a bit smug at times, but still worth a listen). Also from the UK.... The Bugle - my favourite satirical/political comedy with John Oliver (now of Last Week Tonight) and Andy Zaltzman. Tends to focus on UK and US stuff, but also international affairs. No Such Thing as a Fish - a podcast spin off from the TV series 'QI' (Quite Interesting) this is a discussion of their favourite facts they've found in the last week Answer me this - Helen, Ollie, and Martin answer reader's questions on anything from factual stuff to ethical/personal dilemmas

I think I understand now. When I started running, it felt like the bridge in Star Trek during a battle with stuff flying everywhere, alarms going off, general panic and confusion. Why am I running, what's going on, what's the danger, can't keep this up, arrrgghhhh panic, klaxons and bells and whistles. This is entirely normal. But after training/practice, new runners generally get to a point where for the first time they can run comfortably without their body freaking out. Possibly not for very long or very fast, but it gets acclimatised and chills the hell out. I think a lot of it is probably to do with breathing patterns and rythms. I remember reaching this point, and it's brillant when you get there... being able to jog along sustainably even for a short time. The next big step is even better.... when you realise that your energy level is slowly starting to regenerate while running. Have you tried couch-to-5k? That's how I got started with running. One of the things that I liked about it is that it uses a walk-run-walk strategy. Five minute walk to warm up, then a bit of time running, then back to walking, then running again. I can't tell whether the main obstacle is fitness/practice at running or confidence, but I'd imagine that couch to 5k should do the trick. I think the one I used also has some tips about breathing. http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/c25k/Pages/couch-to-5k.aspx My other tips would be to slow right down, find the rythm in your feet, and breathe!

Can you say a bit more about these feelings and anxieties? It's hard to know what to suggest without a bit more background and information. Also, have you been running long, and how far do you typically run? There's something that I call "system shock" that I sometimes get early in a run. If you imagine the energy bar at 100% at the start, it'll decline and then start replenishing, and eventually find some kind of balance at which it just gradually drops. But at the start of the run, it's just dropping, and I find that a bit scary even though I know what it is, and that it'll stop. It's almost a fear that I don't have enough energy in the tank, that I'll just somehow burn through it and be left with no energy, and that's quite a scary thought if I've got ages to go/am miles from home. I often get this in the first two or three KMs, and it soon passes. Is this anything like what you're feeling, or is it something else?

HLS, I enjoy reading your contributions and in general I think we agree much more than we disagree, but I think you've misinterpreted a few things here. It's possible that I've misinterpreted too, of course... I wouldn't personally have used the expression "secret sub-culture" to characterise the issues/experiences that dijos mentions, but I would say that there are issues that some men have faced and have had to deal with that are the result of the patriarchy that some other men and most women don't really understand. They can try to understand, they can try to empathise, they can try to sympathise, they can try to understand. But there's something about the lived experience that that can't capture. I don't even think this is a controversial claim - do any of us really understand what it's like to walk in someone else's shoes? Especially someone whose life has been very different. So I think all I'm saying is that we should be careful before claiming understanding. Maybe we're in agreement, but approaching it from a slightly different angle. "We are taught from a young age that having emotions beyond rage is weakness. and could mark you as gay-the literal kiss of death for some" You're absolutely right that it's homophobic, but I don't read this in any way as a sign that dijos is himself homophobic. I interpreted this as a comment about culture and society and, yes, the patriarchy. Let me tell you what the culture was like going to a boys' school in the UK in the 1980s-1990s. Comedian Paul Foot once said that the highest level of homophobia was punching someone else for not being homophobic. And it was a bit like that. I don't think many people knew what being gay actually was or entailed or meant, and if anyone actually knew anyone who was gay, no-one admitted it or would ever admit it. It's amazing how much UK society has changed in a fairly short space of time on this. But back then, the fear of being labelled gay was immense... it was a fear that could stop pretty much anyone or anything in its tracks. Because if the hive mind/mob mentality of the school decided you were "gay" (whatever they thought that meant - sometimes it meant being effeminate, sometimes it meant sexual attraction to other men, sometimes both, sometimes no-one really knew), it meant being ostracised. It meant it was open season on you. It would mean physical violence, intimidation, having your stuff vandalised and stolen. If they decided to give you that label, and it stuck, you were utterly doomed. No-one would dare to be your friend ever again, because then they'd be gay too by association. Obviously. And don't expect any help or sympathy from the teaching staff in a Catholic school at a time when Section 28 meant it was illegal to even discuss homosexuality in schools because apparently that was "promoting" it, and society as a whole was wildly homophobic. Actually I don't recall it happening to anyone, not for a sustained period, probably because there was always a new victim of the day, probably because kids often don't have the attention span, and probably because people were damn careful in making sure of their hyper-masculine behaviour. But that fear that it might happen, and it might happen to you, was very real. It meant that pretty much everyone self-policed all the time, especially about emotions, about anything that might show weakness. It affected the ways we behaved around our friends, it inhibited affection and expressions of feelings - friendship, fear, even basic human compassion. It policed what interests we could have, what music we could listen to, what TV programmes we should watch, our attitudes and behaviour towards girls. And the self-policing was the worst of it. if you grow up in that environment, it leaves an impression in terms of patterns of behaviour that can be hard to shift. Changing attitudes is one thing, changing patterns of behaviour is harder. Now I've no interest if any of this has ever been shown on screen or is any way a secret - all I'm saying is that if you didn't experience it personally, there's something about what it was like that you can never really know or understand. This isn't a "poor me" story, or even a "poor us" story. I can only imagine what it was like to grow up in that environment for people who were gay, had any degree of bisexuality or were in any way uncertain about their sexuality. I also don't think this is a particularly special/bad case of how the patriarchy operates, or how toxic peer pressure can be. I don't make any kind of claim to equivalence between the way that patriarchy harms men to the way it harms women. What I am claiming is that while nearly everyone has experience of some kind of comparable case where toxic peer pressure meant internalising negative/self destructive attitudes, self-policing being conscripted into policing others, each case of this is different in its own way, feels different from the inside, and deserves to be acknowledged and recognised. I think then it's possible to have interesting and useful conversations with people from that point by drawing analogies between things they've experienced and those that others have experienced. To say, "yes, that happened, that was awful, I can see why that's hurt you, damaged you, and perhaps that damage continues to this day" I think we can do this - as Mark D mentions - without talking past each other or indulging in what I've seen called "whataboutery". I think the way forward might be to acknowledge everyone's toxic experiences of rigid assumptions about gender roles and behaviour (the patriarchy), thinking about what the underlying causes are, and what the solutions might be. I'd rather we try to take people with us - from wherever they start - and have that discussion. I wonder whether some male anger is because they don't feel there's an acknowledgement (from other men, often) about how damaging the patriarchy and associated gender attitudes has been for them. I'd like to find a way of acknowledging that, but without conceding that men have it worse than women, or even assuming equivalence, and ideally without getting caught up in point scoring or talking past it each. And instead move on to talking about solutions, and how we each might be part of that, and what better, healthier society and culture might look like.

I'm less interested in whether these issues have been covered by films/Hollywood/computer games that the issues themselves, what causes them, and what can be done about them. I don't think anyone would dispute that these are all serious issues that effect men, and it's probably hard for some women to understand them. Hell, it's hard for me as a man to understand some of them because I was lucky enough not to be brought up thinking that it was unmanly to express my emotions or to seek help. I thank my lucky stars for that, and reading some posts in this thread has reminded me of how lucky I was and am, and it's good to be reminded of that. I'm always more interested in finding common ground than I am with disagreeing with people. So hopefully the fact that these are all serious issues that need addressing is one point of agreement. In a couple of previous posts, I've tried to say where I think these issues stem from (the patriarchy, and a version of masculinity that's very bad for a lot of men), and what I think would be needed to bring about a solution. But where do others think these problems stem from, and what can be done about them?

I think others have already responded to this, but this fundamentally misunderstands what "patriachy" is. That's not me saying anyone is stupid, merely misinformed. And this thread started as a request for information/comment/discussion, so here it is. Patriachy is *not* a claim that men have absolutely everything their own way - though in some places/times that pretty much was the case. It's also not a claim that *all* men have everything their own way - rather, it privileges certain men and certain conceptions of masculinity over others. Thus, men can be and are the victims of patriachy too, though not as much as women are. Women are more likely to get custody of children because patriachy has stereotypical assumptions about the role of men and women - men are the breadwinners, women the homemakers. I don't think most patriachal systems are particularly fond of divorce, but when it happens the default is to continue the current roles - the mother as caregiver gets custody, the father as breadwinner probably doesn't see his kids that much less (goes the assumption) because he's at work anyway. Thus, if you're a more modern kind of dad who wants much more involvement in bringing up your kids, then you lose out. A better system - for men and women - would be one where people are people first, and gender presumptions and stereotypes are cut right back. As for divorce settlements, I can think of scenarios where a 50-50 split of assets plus alimony is entirely appropriate, and I can think of scenarios where it isn't. And I'm pretty sure that how it works. I'm glad to hear that you've been reading links that others have posted. Here's an interesting one both on the topic of priviledge, and particularly interesting, on the kind of distress that people who *have* priviledge feel when things start to change under them. It points out that those who are priviledged generally never asked for it, often don't realise they have it, and that that distress can be and often is genuine and needs to be understood and taken into account. http://weeklysift.com/2012/09/10/the-distress-of-the-privileged/

This is pretty much it. The problem is patriarchy, and it's a problem for men and for women. It's bad for everyone, but it's worse for women. It's odd how a lot of men's complaints about the way society is organised and women's complaints about the way society is organised are both complaints about patriarchy, yet they're often framed as being in opposition, when in fact they're in furious agreement about the problem. "Why are men derided for showing their emotions? Why are men's health campaigns so much less successful than women's? Why are men in no-win situations when threatened with violence by women? Why is female violence against men regarded as a joke? Why do men come off worst in custody battles/access to children? Why is hard for men to follow careers in the caring professions (nursing, social worker, teaching younger children)? Why is so little done about mental health issues (including suicide) for young men? Why would a stay-at-home dad be derided?" Patriarchy, patriarchy, patriarchy. The established power structures, established expectations of gender behaviour and gender roles are behind all of these complaints. And I'd say these complaints are entirely legitimate, albeit generally less serious than the list of things that women suffer as a result of the patriarchy. But sort out patriarchy, and we can sort out them all. I've posted in this thread before (page 1, I think) about how we should be very suspicious about any kind of explanations arising from evolution or things that are somehow "hard wired" in our DNA, or whatever. Yes, we probably do carry primitive instincts around with us, but a vastly greater share of our instincts are from the culture and environment we grew up in and which we live in. The only thing, I'd argue, that we're "hard wired" for is adaptability. What else explains the tasks that we're nearly all able to do (driving cars, reading and writing) that we can't possibly have evolved to do, or the incredibly complex vast social structures and institutions that we've created for ourselves? I think it's a great mistake to lean too much on evolutionary explanations - it's an attempt to disguise what's fundamentally ideological as biological. It also diminishes us as individuals - our preferences, our ability to choose goals, to revise and rethink our goals (this site is full of people who've done/are doing that). We are more than our culture, and we're certainly more than our biology.

It's hard to know how to respond to this, as it's not immediately obvious where you're from and so what culture/country you're talking about. My guess from language/spelling would be North America somewhere. I'm not, I'm from the UK. So... perhaps things are different. But it's hard to imagine that it's true that "intimate partner violence" happens at equal rates. That just seems hugely unlikely to me, and runs against all the evidence I've ever seen on the topic. But maybe there are some cultures where that's the case. But I don't really understand how this is relevant to your general concerns. More to the point, I worry a bit about this "respect must be earned" line. I agree that "respect" shouldn't be unconditional, but I'd have framed it differently. I try to respect everyone automatically (and hopefully that comes across even in writing), and instead say "respect can be lost". Framing things that way means everyone gets the benefit of the doubt, they get initial goodwill and a fair chance/hearing, but it's not unlimited or unconditional. Maybe we agree on this - I suspect we might well do - but I would suggest framing it in this way rather than "respect must be earned". But key is this bit "What I bridle at is this unwritten (unspoken?) trend among modern women that because penis I am automatically beneath you, especially if I want to work and have you stay at home" I don't really understand this. As a man, if someone says to me "I want to work, and I want my wife to be a home maker", I would regard that as old fashioned. I'd regard it as limiting in a number of ways, and I'd regard someone with that view as drastically reducing the pool of potential mates. But if he accepts that as the consequence of his choice, that's fair enough. Because just as he has the right to say "I want this kind of relationship", so does everyone else - men and women. By way of a parallel case, I probably wouldn't consider a potential partner who only wanted to be a home maker, rather than perhaps just when the kids are young or whatever. I take that decision, that rules out potential mates for me. Similarly if someone decides they won't (say) move more than three miles from their parents, or won't live in a apartment, or won't live with a non-vegetarian, or won't have sex before marriage or whatever. I think everyone puts limits on their partner choices, and that's fine. The key is knowing that you're doing it, and accepting the consequences that follow. For me that was one girl at university, who wouldn't have gone out with me anyway! What is okay, I think, is expecting a degree of respect for your opinions and choices. Others have a right to their opinion, and may voice it. I'd hope that everyone you encounter is respectful of your views and your choices and preferences. But I also think it's okay for people to challenge a little bit. And fine, you bridle away if people challenge too much, or treat your choices with disrespect. What is not okay - for any of us - is to expect the rest of the world to arrange itself to suit our preferences. If you want a woman to be a homemaker, you have to accept that that's going to be a dealbreaker for a lot of women. And just as you don't want to be made to feel belittled for your preference, so you need to respect and accept theirs. As above, perhaps you can challenge it a little bit, but what you shouldn't do is expect a woman who doesn't share your views to fall into line because that's what you want. And what you really shouldn't do - in your own interest - is get frustrated and resentful when it doesn't happen, and look to blame anything but your own preferences. Now don't get me wrong.... in general I admire people who have principles, even if I disagree with them. who stick to them. I think typically that's an admirable quality. It's good for everyone to have their own code, and I prefer people who stick to their code than those who chop and change as things suit them. But having a code and having minority views comes at a cost. But I wonder if the way forward is to think about how you could reinvent the role of provider and protector and reinterpret it in a more flexible way. Others have posted some interesting links above which I've not followed yet, but which must be worth a look.

I find myself really suspicious of any claims about the "true" nature of men and women and culture and relations that rest heavily on assumptions about evolution or evolutionary psychology. Evolutionary psychology can be really useful in explaining certain aspects of human behaviour (e.g. thinking fast and slow/lizard brain stuff) and the way we react to things, but I'd argue it's much less useful once claims stray from biology into issues around culture and society. One problem is that we don't know for sure how early humans lived and organised their societies, and especially how much variation there was between groups and over time. I wonder how much wishful thinking and projection is going on to some imagined past where men were "real men" and women "knew their place". But another is explaining why any of this is even relevant. For me, the most striking thing about humans is their adaptability - both individually in terms of learning new skills and tasks and collectively in terms of how we organise ourselves. It's amazing to me that the vast majority of humans are capable of learning how to read and write and how to drive a car. How on earth can we do that, and take it entirely for granted that we can and will? Our capacity to pick up new skills is phenomenal, and the only aspect evolution can take credit for is that adaptability to learning new tasks. Humans have also gone from a extended family/tribal method of organisation through villages and towns into cities and countries and now a global society and economy.... from a simple hunter/gather society through agricultural, industrial, and computer revolutions... and we now have a social and economic order and levels of technology that are so complex that it's been a very long time since any one person understood everything. We've also changed in terms of ethics and morality, how we treat others, the level of empathy we feel for other people. Believe it or not, we've become less and less violent as a species as we've become more interconnected, developed our levels of empathy, and understood each other better. We're also capable of reflecting on and criticising and proposing changes to the existing order of things - we're not the prisoners of them. And even within my lifetime we've seen huge changes in terms of technology, social relations, the way we live and work together. So the idea that we should reach back through all of human history to one particular point, to a point that I don't think we really understand very well, and say "that's it, that's how nature has ordained us to be, and therefore that's how we ought to be now, under entirely different circumstances" is a very peculiar one. At least to me. It's also something that as a man I find insulting. I don't deny that evolution has its legacy in terms of my instincts and my reactions, but the idea that I'm a slave to them and can't help myself against them (and, crucially, can't get better at dealing with unhelpful/unhealthy reactions) is surely entirely wrong. Now I've read all that back and read the thread again, I realise that I don't think anyone *has* expressed kind of reductive quasi-evolutionary psych argument, so perhaps this is just me shooting at straw targets, or making a point that doesn't need to be made. At any rate, it's not intended as a direct response or criticism to anything anyone here has said.... more of a general response to some of the ideas that are out there.