Late night musings...shit be heavy yo

[Mark D]

Whether I respected her strength or not, I didn't respect her attitude, her victim-selection-ability, or her common sense, because if you have any brains you do NOT pick a fight with someone who has a 75% weight advantage over you.  This is exactly why fighting sports like boxing and MMA are divided by weight class.  Or does a heavyweight boxer not respect the strength of a flyweight by not boxing with him?  

 

Let me repeat that, because it's important.  Does a heavyweight boxer not respect the strength of a flyweight by not entering into a boxing match with him?  Why or why not, show your work.  

 

If not, how did I disrespect her strength by not fighting someone with a comparable weight disadvantage?

 

If so, should we eliminate weight (and of course gender) classes in the fighting sports?  How about other non-fighting sports like weightlifting, track-and-field, tennis?  GOLF?

[StillWaters]

@fortheplaid: In a perfect world, the assailant would go to jail, provided that the victim acted in a way consistent with self defense. As for what you should do, that should be determined on a case by case basis. This article should help:http://www.artofmanliness.com/2008/05/06/how-to-win-a-street-fight-in-7-simple-steps/

It mainly addresses threats from other men, but the same thing is applicable to women as well.

MarkD: Now you are comparing apples to oranges. Sport fighting and street or "real world" fighting are hardly the same thing. Sport fighting has rules and regulations. It takes away most if not all of the ways a smaller person can gain the upper hand on bigger person. Contrast that with street fighting, where anything goes. A physically weaker opponent could use brass knuckles, groin kicks, various objects from the environment, mace, scratching, biting, eye poking, hair pulling, hidden switch blades, or even a gun.

Then there is still the issue of a man fighting a smaller man who is physically weaker than him and not running into the catch-22 problem that would happen with a woman of comparable size and strength.

As an example, picture a schoolyard bully. If a boy who is smaller and weaker than him challenges him to fight, he will have no problem with taking up the challenge. The catch-22 won't happen. The bully has a chance to come out a winner.

If a girl of identical size and strength to the weaker boy were to challenge the bully, all of a sudden, there is a problem. If he wins, he is a brute who beats on girls, and if he loses, he is a wuss who got beat up by a girl.

Why does society see it as more acceptable to fight the weaker boy, but not the girl of identical size and strength to the weaker boy?

[Oramac]

Why does society see it as more acceptable to fight the weaker boy, but not the girl of identical size and strength to the weaker boy?

 

Because since the beginning of time, protecting women from harm has been required of men.  For many people, it still is.  It's part of a man's DNA to protect those weaker than him, man or woman. 

 

On paper, there's no issue with the bully vs the boy or girl, assuming equal size and skill.  But emotionally, fighting the woman invokes that "protector" instinct, and those of us on the outside looking in ostracize the guy regardless of the outcome.  And we must remember that emotions play a large role in our decision making process, especially in "heat of the moment" situations.  It can be very difficult to remove emotions from decisions like that, and takes conscious effort and some training to do so.  

 

Is it right?  Maybe. Maybe not.  Should it change?  Again, I don't know.  CAN it change?  Unfortunately, I don't think so.  

[Mark D]

(snip)

 

Is it right?  Maybe. Maybe not.  Should it change?  Again, I don't know.  CAN it change?  Unfortunately, I don't think so.  

 

Human nature changes VERY slowly, much more slowly than technology.  Bring Julius Caesar to the 20th Century, he'd have been amazed at airplanes, cars/trucks, electric lights, etc.  He'd have had no trouble understanding Hitler.  So technologically and practically it's possible it's not necessary for men to function as protectors of women.  The man's lizard-brain didn't get the memo and will continue to insist he do so.  

 

And this discussion is, I think, where the problem lies for our original poster.  On the one hand his instincts (to the extent that humans have them), upbringing, and historical societal pressure tell him to act one way.  Individuals and modern society tell him to act a different way.  

[BlackTezca]

IN YOUR PERFECT SOCIETY, IN WHICH EVERYONE IS TREATED EQUAL AND GIVEN EQUAL RESPECT, IF A WOMAN ATTACKS A MAN FOR NO REASON, WHO GOES TO JAIL, THE ASSAILANT OR THE VICTIM?

 

 

@fortheplaid: In a perfect world, the assailant would go to jail, provided that the victim acted in a way consistent with self defense. As for what you should do, that should be determined on a case by case basis. This article should help:http://www.artofmanliness.com/2008/05/06/how-to-win-a-street-fight-in-7-simple-steps/

It mainly addresses threats from other men, but the same thing is applicable to women as well.

 

Yup, I'm with StillWaters.  In a perfect society, the assailant, no matter what gender, would go to jail.  Thankfully, I have yet to meet anyone who thought the reverse and if I did, my brain would explode out of the lack of logic and idiocy I'd was hearing.

 

I say this as a married, female software engineer in a heterosexual relationship that is overall untraditional.  I also consider myself a feminist.  I was raised in a two parent household, with both my father and my mother having active careers.  I agree that it seems that society espouses very narrow and even contradicting expectations for men and woman (men a bit more than women) and I find that sad and rage worthy. We are all individuals with different interests, instincts, attractions, etc. For me, personally, if you identify as a man, and treat people civilly, then you're a man. 

 

Any person who identifies as either gender and treats people as beneath them, with insults, unearned disrespect, and with violence, I consider them something else: assholes.

[Hit]

 

 

its not what you know, its what you can prove" - denzel washington, training day

 

 

 

IN YOUR PERFECT SOCIETY, IN WHICH EVERYONE IS TREATED EQUAL AND GIVEN EQUAL RESPECT, IF A WOMAN ATTACKS A MAN FOR NO REASON, WHO GOES TO JAIL, THE ASSAILANT OR THE VICTIM?

 

in my perfect society? nobody because fuck the police. in my personal experience, whoever is standing around when the police arrive on the scene goes in the wagon.

 

And Id really love to know what you ladies (miss korra and our resident lioness) would propose we (as in men) should do if we're faced with that situation-do we "respect her strength", treat her like a threat (this is all contingent on her being the aggressor, for whatever reason), defend our bodily integrity and go to jail?

 

this isn't an either/or situation. imagine said hypothetical girl was me - i stand 6'5" and weigh near on 200lbs. i train martial arts (wing chun and capoeira), can run a sub-6 minute mile and deadlift over 300lb for reps - and im coming to put you in the ground. if i get to you, im going to hurt you. 

 

respecting someones strength does mean that you consider them a threat, but that doesn't mean you just punch on and win the fight. it means you act appropriately to remove the threat - whether by removing yourself from the situation, contacting the police / bar staff / hr manager, or by last resort defending yourself with appropriate levels of physical force.  

[fortheplaid!]

its not what you know, its what you can prove" - denzel washington, training day

 

 

in my perfect society? nobody because fuck the police. in my personal experience, whoever is standing around when the police arrive on the scene goes in the wagon.

 

 

this isn't an either/or situation. imagine said hypothetical girl was me - i stand 6'5" and weigh near on 200lbs. i train martial arts (wing chun and capoeira), can run a sub-6 minute mile and deadlift over 300lb for reps - and im coming to put you in the ground. if i get to you, im going to hurt you. 

 

respecting someones strength does mean that you consider them a threat, but that doesn't mean you just punch on and win the fight. it means you act appropriately to remove the threat - whether by removing yourself from the situation, contacting the police / bar staff / hr manager, or by last resort defending yourself with appropriate levels of physical force.  

Well, frankly Id never put myself in a situation where Id piss someone like that off Im cocky, not stupid. But, 9 times out of 10, that ISNT the situation youre faced with. Its more like what MarkD told us- some 5'3'', 110lb lightweight gets some bee in her bonnet and decides "Im pissed at this guy, so Imma let a little steam off and he aint gonna do shit cuz Im a girl." What I just described is the scenario me or any other guy is more likely to come up across- and then we (I) are faced with the same moral dilemma we just spent 10+ posts and 3 or more days discussing. You can deadlift 300? Great. Squat 3x your body weight? You go girl. Bench press 2x your bodyweight? Fucking A-rite. That I can (and will) respect. But relying on a code of conduct to protect you (and then bemoaning/bitching about said code, ie "patriarchy") is the highest form of hypocrisy and it pisses me off.

[kaelvan]

Ok maybe this makes me a bad person but I cracked up at that one. And yea, Im definitely not Chris Brown....

Then I did my job right.

[Hit]

 

 

Well, frankly Id never put myself in a situation where Id piss someone like that off   Im cocky, not stupid.

 

you're missing the point. would you put yourself in a situation where'd you piss someone who was 5'3" off? what if they had a knife? or a taser? or were a trained boxer? what if they were spezzy or any of the other women on this site whose raw lifts are higher than mine even though shes a lot smaller?

 

the "not respecting" we're talking about is the assumption that the girl is weaker than you BECAUSE SHES A GIRL. You have no way of knowing what that girl is capable of until after the fight. Assuming she cant hurt you = not respecting her. 

 

 

 

 But relying on a code of conduct to protect you (and then bemoaning/bitching about said code, ie "patriarchy") is the highest form of hypocrisy and it pisses me off.

 

No, girls don't rely on patriarchy to protect them. Some girls may take advantage of patriarchal thinking in order to gain the upper-hand in a confrontation, just like how some men take advantage of patriarchal thinking to gain the upper-hand in a sexual assault case and avoid conviction. Hopefully you can see that this is bad for all people involved, and that patriarchy sucks and needs to die. 

[Chrestomanci]

My life got a lot better when I stopped worrying about being "manly" and just started trying to be the best human I could be. 

I don't know how to change the oil in my car because for twenty bucks I can have someone who I know and trust do it for me, but I do know how to change a tire just in case I get in a bad situation. I don't care how manly or not manly either of those things makes me.

Manliness only comes down to how other people see me, and fuck that noise

 

Plus there are a lot of more "sensitive" aspects of manliness that I think are more important, like being a good father, building things not destroying things, etc.

 

I do think there are good aspects of manliness, but they are better off done because they are good things, not because they are manly. I find I get too pressured into doing stupid stuff when I worry too much about being manly

[Rostov]

No, girls don't rely on patriarchy to protect them. Some girls may take advantage of patriarchal thinking in order to gain the upper-hand in a confrontation, just like how some men take advantage of patriarchal thinking to gain the upper-hand in a sexual assault case and avoid conviction. Hopefully you can see that this is bad for all people involved, and that patriarchy sucks and needs to die. 

 

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.

[StillWaters]

Because since the beginning of time, protecting women from harm has been required of men.  For many people, it still is.  It's part of a man's DNA to protect those weaker than him, man or woman. 

 

On paper, there's no issue with the bully vs the boy or girl, assuming equal size and skill.  But emotionally, fighting the woman invokes that "protector" instinct, and those of us on the outside looking in ostracize the guy regardless of the outcome.  And we must remember that emotions play a large role in our decision making process, especially in "heat of the moment" situations.  It can be very difficult to remove emotions from decisions like that, and takes conscious effort and some training to do so.  

 

Is it right?  Maybe. Maybe not.  Should it change?  Again, I don't know.  CAN it change?  Unfortunately, I don't think so.  

 

 

Human nature changes VERY slowly, much more slowly than technology.  Bring Julius Caesar to the 20th Century, he'd have been amazed at airplanes, cars/trucks, electric lights, etc.  He'd have had no trouble understanding Hitler.  So technologically and practically it's possible it's not necessary for men to function as protectors of women.  The man's lizard-brain didn't get the memo and will continue to insist he do so.  

 

And this discussion is, I think, where the problem lies for our original poster.  On the one hand his instincts (to the extent that humans have them), upbringing, and historical societal pressure tell him to act one way.  Individuals and modern society tell him to act a different way.  

 

I supposed this is one of the main things that doesn't make sense to me. I personally think the "protector" role of men has been blown way out of proportion from what it originally was. Yes, men do play more of a protector role than women do because at no point in their lives are they ever pregnant and have greater than the average woman in general. But in most hunter-gather societies, women were needed to forage for food, and yes, assist in hunts, which means that not all of them could be pregnant all at once and they would have to space those kids out. Any babies/small children were largely left in their care. That means they still had to be powerful BAMFs to bring down animals, protect themselves while out foraging for plant matter, and defend their kids. Men couldn't possibly be there for them for every instance of protection, so they had to have needed to rely on their own ability to dole out, avoid, and take hits. The women of old were not allowed to be fragile china dolls or treated like children who need protecting from everything.

[Oramac]

respecting someones strength does mean that you consider them a threat, but that doesn't mean you just punch on and win the fight. it means you act appropriately to remove the threat - whether by removing yourself from the situation, contacting the police / bar staff / hr manager, or by last resort defending yourself with appropriate levels of physical force.  

 

This is taught in virtually every weapons training class I've ever taken.  The objective is to remove the threat.  Whether it be by leaving, talking, or force.  This is where Situational Awareness plays a huge role.  And it is something sadly lacking in modern society (in both men and women).

 

the "not respecting" we're talking about is the assumption that the girl is weaker than you BECAUSE SHES A GIRL. You have no way of knowing what that girl is capable of until after the fight. Assuming she cant hurt you = not respecting her. 

 

Adding to the previous post, with Situational Awareness, it's wisest to assume that everyone is capable of killing you, and preparing accordingly.

 

That being said, basic threat assessment principals apply.  The 6'8" 260 pound male ranks higher on the threat meter than the 5'3" 110 pound female.  

 

I supposed this is one of the main things that doesn't make sense to me. I personally think the "protector" role of men has been blown way out of proportion from what it originally was. Yes, men do play more of a protector role than women do because at no point in their lives are they ever pregnant and have greater than the average woman in general. But in most hunter-gather societies, women were needed to forage for food, and yes, assist in hunts, which means that not all of them could be pregnant all at once and they would have to space those kids out. Any babies/small children were largely left in their care. That means they still had to be powerful BAMFs to bring down animals, protect themselves while out foraging for plant matter, and defend their kids. Men couldn't possibly be there for them for every instance of protection, so they had to have needed to rely on their own ability to dole out, avoid, and take hits. The women of old were not allowed to be fragile china dolls or treated like children who need protecting from everything.

 

Yes, women of old absolutely needed to be able to protect themselves, and their children and flock.  No argument there.  But the women were rarely the ones to go to war to defend the nation.  It did happen, yes, but the vast majority of soldiers were male.  

 

The issue I have is that modern women appear to not want males to protect them, which is fine, but then they take zero precautions to protect themselves.  Most of the women I talk to have never taken a self-defense class, and don't have a clue about their Situational Awareness.  And most of them are unwilling to train with any sort of weapon.  

[dijos]

My life got a lot better when I stopped worrying about being "manly" and just started trying to be the best human I could be. 

I don't know how to change the oil in my car because for twenty bucks I can have someone who I know and trust do it for me, but I do know how to change a tire just in case I get in a bad situation. I don't care how manly or not manly either of those things makes me.

Manliness only comes down to how other people see me, and fuck that noise

 

Plus there are a lot of more "sensitive" aspects of manliness that I think are more important, like being a good father, building things not destroying things, etc.

 

I do think there are good aspects of manliness, but they are better off done because they are good things, not because they are manly. I find I get too pressured into doing stupid stuff when I worry too much about being manly

 

 

I want to address this specifically; but first....

 

Ladies, it is difficult to understand, but men struggle with our own secret subculture that you are normally not privy to-just as we cannot really understand what it's like to be a woman for real, you likely have not had many of the f-ed up parts of (i'm going to say U.S) male culture. We, as men need to work on ourselves collectively to help ourselves, for ourselves. This is completely independent of women. I can go on a tear about my oldest child and his his lunatic mother, and how the system screws men (me.), but that will accomplish zero.

 

I think that Chrestomanci's post touches on an important dichotomy in male culture. I grew up in a badly physically and mentally abusive house. my dad was a mechanic, could fix houses, built and ran his own business, was a fruitcake about fitness, and was tough as an MF. Super manly. He also beat the living shit out of me (pudgy, glasses, spazzy and nerdy kid) on the regular. Child protective services was called to my house alot. 

 

this sucked. Home sucked, and school sucked. I had to fight there too. So, I got good at fighting. then, I grew up, and carried a gun everywhere. and shot competitively, then trained in knife fighting for years. for a non-professional, I trained a lot in hurting and killing folks. 

 

Time passes, and I get a ton of therapy due to a breakdown. I come to a bunch of realizations. Tearing down is not as important as building.

 

I have  a 6 year old, and he's a big kid. I have to teach him what it means to be a man. You know who I constantly think of as the paradigm of a 'good example'?  

 

Fred Rogers. 

 

He worked to create a positive environment for children, and to build them up. As a man, "protecting the tribe" is more complicated than kicking asses. If anything, fighting is easier than gently pushing/teaching a child or helping those less capable or fortunate than you. It is a show of strength when you are kind, or loving, as you are fighting the assigned role and character traits of a "man".  

[dijos]

It is also manly to double post.  

[Nubbins McGee]

I'm resisting the urge to cite anything specific in this thread, but I feel that there is something to be pointed out here.  One of the by-products of the creation of society is that if we chose to be a member of that society, then we accept that we must live within the constraints of the tyranny of the majority.  

 

That is to say, I don't care what particular combination of labels you are (male, female, white, black, Hispanic, Jew, Mormon, straight, gay, rich, poor,  whatever...), you, personally, are not representative of the majority of the people  in your community or society.  You may share a number of labels with them, but you are not "average".   There is no such thing as an average individual.  Community, society, and culture are blends of a whole lot of different people with different view points.   Not only are not all of them are going to agree with you, but your viewpoints are going to chap somebody's ass somewhere.   It is practically a law of nature.  

 

What I see happening--which I'm the first person to admit is skewed by my own point of view and personal belief system-- is that we're moving in some really strange directions as a western society.   I'm a middle aged, middle class, white male.  If something doesn't go my way... Let's say I didn't get a job I really wanted, for example, I have the luxury of assuming that it is because I wasn't the most qualified candidate.  If I'm a woman, I might assume it's misogyny, if I'm black, I might assume it's racism, if I present myself publicly as a flamboyant gay man, I might assume it's homophobia.   See where I'm going with this?  In all of those cases it could be simply that I'm not the most qualified candidate.  

 

One of the other nearly-laws-of-nature that I know is if you are trying to find a reason to be offended, you almost always find one.  Yes, misogyny, racism, and homophobia are real things, and terrible things really happen because of them.  It's the blaming of everything bad happening to you because of outside, societal norms when there is no evidence to support it that I'm seeing really gain a foothold in western culture.  It drives me nuts.  There is a mentality of "I'm a victim" that seems to be infecting a larger and larger portion of the population and portraying yourself (or thinking about yourself for that matter) as a victim rather than someone in control themselves and their lives might earn you some (very) short term sympathy, but does not get anyone, anywhere good in the long run.  We as a culture can sense that on individuals, and we shun it, creating a self-perpetuating cycle.  

 

Oh what do I know?  I'm a middle aged white guy.  Yep, you're right.  There are things I will never experience and never know.  That doesn't mean I haven't also experienced negative consequences because of that tyranny of the majority thing I talk about right at the start of this post.  I'm a serious introvert in an extrovert world--and business.  It took me a long time (years!) to accept that I needed to make some changes to fit in, and that I can't make people writ large conform to my will.  It would be nice, but the world doesn't work that way.  "Ideally" and "reality" are widely separated.  Failure to accept that is foolish.  Pushing the limits of reality closer towards an ideal society is admirable and it is the way we affect change.  Crying "not fair" doesn't help a bit unless backed up with action.

 

 

Sidebar societal rant: Personally, I loathe media portrayals of men as incompetent at all things domestic.  On a day to day basis for the last 20+ years, I'm a far more consistent parent, homemaker, and cook than my wife.  That's not say she's bad at any of it, she's just a grand gesture type of person where I am firmly planted in the daily grind.   Kids have a giant, artsy, project to do for school?  Get mom to help. It's guaranteed you'll get an "A".  Kids need clean socks to wear Monday through Friday?  Dad makes sure that happens.  According to sitcoms, I'm incapable of sorting laundry, or changing diapers, or making toast without burning it.   I have a brood of children who will tell you otherwise.

[Oramac]

One of the other nearly-laws-of-nature that I know is if you are trying to find a reason to be offended, you almost always find one.  Yes, misogyny, racism, and homophobia are real things, and terrible things really happen because of them.  It's the blaming of everything bad happening to you because of outside, societal norms when there is no evidence to support it that I'm seeing really gain a foothold in western culture.  It drives me nuts.  There is a mentality of "I'm a victim" that seems to be infecting a larger and larger portion of the population and portraying yourself (or thinking about yourself for that matter) as a victim rather than someone in control themselves and their lives might earn you some (very) short term sympathy, but does not get anyone, anywhere good in the long run.  We as a culture can sense that on individuals, and we shun it, creating a self-perpetuating cycle.  

 

Oh what do I know?  I'm a middle aged white guy.  Yep, you're right.  There are things I will never experience and never know.  That doesn't mean I haven't also experienced negative consequences because of that tyranny of the majority thing I talk about right at the start of this post.  I'm a serious introvert in an extrovert world--and business.  It took me a long time (years!) to accept that I needed to make some changes to fit in, and that I can't make people writ large conform to my will.  It would be nice, but the world doesn't work that way.  "Ideally" and "reality" are widely separated.  Failure to accept that is foolish.  Pushing the limits of reality closer towards an ideal society is admirable and it is the way we affect change.  Crying "not fair" doesn't help a bit unless backed up with action.

 

QFT. 

[fortheplaid!]

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. 

Except the idea of "the patriarchy" is bullshit. If all the things you just mentioned (all the legitimate complaints you JUST cited) are evidence of "innate male priviledge", then whoever set up the system fucked up royally. How can I (or any other man" feel "privileged" that the mother of my children will almost always be given custody? That I will not only lose half my stuff in a divorce, but more than likely have to pay HER alimony for X number of years? THAT is privilege? If so, then sign me up for fucking gender reassignment, because that is utter and complete bollocks.

[Hit]

You are missing the fundamentals to have this argument, and belligerently avoiding the discussion to badger on your talking points. I started writing a reply to explain privilege and patriarchy, but given that you seen to lack even a basic understanding of these theories I'd be writing for days. Please go and read this quick run down: http://everydayfeminism.com/2014/09/what-is-privilege/. And then keep reading and educate yourself.

 

 

 

then sign me up for fucking gender reassignment

 

the freaking irony of this statement. 

 

 

 

Pushing the limits of reality closer towards an ideal society is admirable and it is the way we affect change.  Crying "not fair" doesn't help a bit unless backed up with action.

 

Maybe you should direct some of that advice towards your fellow men in this thread, rather than the women who are pushing to be taking seriously and treated with respect. 

 

 

 

Ladies, it is difficult to understand, but men struggle with our own secret subculture that you are normally not privy to-just as we cannot really understand what it's like to be a woman for real

 

Please, enlighten us to this secret sub culture. And then show me how there's not already a blockbuster film, bestselling book, or popular tv show that explores this struggle directly. 

[Zorch]

Except the idea of "the patriarchy" is bullshit. If all the things you just mentioned (all the legitimate complaints you JUST cited) are evidence of "innate male priviledge", then whoever set up the system fucked up royally. How can I (or any other man" feel "privileged" that the mother of my children will almost always be given custody? That I will not only lose half my stuff in a divorce, but more than likely have to pay HER alimony for X number of years? THAT is privilege? If so, then sign me up for fucking gender reassignment, because that is utter and complete bollocks.

 

That's a very one-sided portrayal.  Yes, there are facets of society in which things may be biased in favor of women - but they are few relative to those where men have an advantage.  I suggest sitting down and having a conversation with some women about things they've experienced first-hand and about their own experiences with gender bias.  If you approach it with an open mind, you'll almost certainly find some willing to discuss this with you, and it might be enlightening.

 

As a straight, white male with an upper-middle class upbringing, I can safely say I have never had to contend with some of the things others close have to contend with - including my girlfriend and my sister, both of whom are educated professionals in fields traditionally hyper-dominated by men.  And I can say without a doubt that people treat you differently.  I've been in conversations where the entire room was comprised of straight white males from reasonably privileged income brackets, and without a doubt there are things spoken in that room that many would not dare say in the presence of women or other races.

 

Studies time and again have shown that assertive/aggressive behaviors tend to be viewed positively ("leadership") when exhibited by men, but are viewed as being "bossy"/"bitchy" when a woman does the same thing,  Look at how society views sexuality in general - the same behaviors from men and women will be labelled very differently.  Do a little research on pay gaps between men and women.  Thank yourself that you're of the sex that's the overwhelming majority in positions of leadership, both in the government and in the corporate world - women aren't absent from these roles because they're not as capable, but because of covert/subconscious biases in the system.

 

Being a straight, white male does not necessarily mean that someone had an easy life, but to claim that we somehow have it harder than those of other races, genders, or sexual orientations is laughable.

[kaelvan]

The reason for higher cases of IPV cases in lesbian women as compared to hetro women is due to lack of education. Most don't know that they need protection still and are still at a risk for stds. Since there still good portion of us (hi I'm a lesbian by the way), who are too afraid to mention they are sexually engaged with women, never get tested for IPV or any other std for that matter. 

[kaelvan]

Because, frankly, aggression is associated with testosterone, the MALE sex hormone (yes women have it, but no where NEAR the levels that men do.) And its just so....unladylike. They may have no sexual interest in me at all, or in men at all, but that does NOT give them a pass to act like some bully simply on the (mistaken) belief that men wont (or at least shouldnt) ever hit a girl. 

 

Its the golden rule writ large frankly-treat others how you want to be treated. And if you want to act like a hyper agressive sociopath, guess what, Im going to treat you like one. And I dont treat threats to my safety lightly, regardless of what type of parts you have. 

 

Also in answer to your first question, Im in food service. So yea, not exactly an industry that rewards aggression.

The word ladylike makes me cringe. It was used on me lot for anything I did that was not what a stereotypical woman would do.

[TMedina]

Aggression is more than just testosterone.  Admittedly, testosterone can play a role, but don't kid yourself - environmental factors can and will play a role in developing aggressive behavior in people, male or female.

 

Unladylike?  So?  How exactly does one define "a lady"?  And why should any female be required to adhere to that definition, whatever it is?

 

You're making some assumptions there - it doesn't give them a pass, and it may not be based on the fact that men won't ever hit a girl.  In fact, I'm pretty sure statistics on domestic violence will dispel the idea that men won't hit women.

 

Ok, cool.  Someone's an aggressive nut, treat them like an aggressive nut.  But here's the catch - society is not black and white, no matter how much you might wish it was.  Some places skew heavily towards men.  Some places skew heavily towards women.  As an Army vet, there are places that skew against veterans.  It's the human condition - someone, somewhere, is going to discriminate against you in favor of someone else based on generalized assumptions.

 

But pause for a minute - how often do you get cat-called while walking down the street?  When you look at a set of keys, do you see a means of opening a door, or a means of defending yourself against an unwanted attack?  Do you have to fear being cornered, attacked, and raped?  Probably not.  These concerns probably don't even cross your mind.  For women, it's a very real threat and one they have to think about semi-regularly.  That's the core of "male privilege" - an automatic, unthinking advantage inherent to one person over another.  And to be sure, you present examples where "male privilege" isn't all that great, or where it plays against men, but that doesn't change the basic fact that it does exist and is a real thing.

 

As for dealing with aggressive co-workers, female or not, file complaints with HR.  Or change jobs.  It's the same solution you'd take with aggressive co-workers of either gender, male or female.  

[BlackTezca]

The word ladylike makes me cringe. It was used on me lot for anything I did that was not what a stereotypical woman would do.

 

I feel you; it's pretty irritating to feel like I have to justify my own gender because I'm not 'ladylike'.

 

A little related video that you may like kaelvan : https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=mg0s3CDkbvQ

 

I feel like there is a lot of frustration on this thread that is being misplaced and put on women as a whole.  Women are not a hive mind; I certainly don't feel like I am superior due to my gender nor do I feel that it is appropriate to treat my peers with disdain.  I've met men who act like complete assholes but I also don't place their attitudes on all men because men are not a hive mind either. 

 

A little update: Also, like how I have to justify my own gender, so do some men I know: gay men, stay at home fathers, men who dislike sports, etc.  It really really just sucks to be forced into a tiny box.

[kaelvan]

Aggression is more than just testosterone. Admittedly, testosterone can play a role, but don't kid yourself - environmental factors can and will play a role in developing aggressive behavior in people, male or female.

Unladylike? So? How exactly does one define "a lady"? And why should any female be required to adhere to that definition, whatever it is?

You're making some assumptions there - it doesn't give them a pass, and it may not be based on the fact that men won't ever hit a girl. In fact, I'm pretty sure statistics on domestic violence will dispel the idea that men won't hit women.

Ok, cool. Someone's an aggressive nut, treat them like an aggressive nut. But here's the catch - society is not black and white, no matter how much you might wish it was. Some places skew heavily towards men. Some places skew heavily towards women. As an Army vet, there are places that skew against veterans. It's the human condition - someone, somewhere, is going to discriminate against you in favor of someone else based on generalized assumptions.

But pause for a minute - how often do you get cat-called while walking down the street? When you look at a set of keys, do you see a means of opening a door, or a means of defending yourself against an unwanted attack? Do you have to fear being cornered, attacked, and raped? Probably not. These concerns probably don't even cross your mind. For women, it's a very real threat and one they have to think about semi-regularly. That's the core of "male privilege" - an automatic, unthinking advantage inherent to one person over another. And to be sure, you present examples where "male privilege" isn't all that great, or where it plays against men, but that doesn't change the basic fact that it does exist and is a real thing.

As for dealing with aggressive co-workers, female or not, file complaints with HR. Or change jobs. It's the same solution you'd take with aggressive co-workers of either gender, male or female.

I like to add how sexually assault cases are still aren't really being taken serious. Though NY seems to finally add men on to the list of people covered under the law. Also, seems they changed the wording quit a bit. Good for them.

You still have serious problem if your assaulter ends up on trial (if you got "lucky" *finger motion thing* and had the bulletproof case), more likely they're going to walk (98% of the time it's the case).

https://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/reporting-rates