Late night musings...shit be heavy yo

[TMedina]

Eeek, I hope you aren't referencing my for bullshit spewing.

 

Another note about sexual assault cases not being taken seriously - Detroit had, what, thousands of rape test kits that hadn't been tested?

[kaelvan]

Eeek, I hope you aren't referencing my for bullshit spewing.

 

Another note about sexual assault cases not being taken seriously - Detroit had, what, thousands of rape test kits that hadn't been tested?

Oh nonononono not you. You're good (for now). Just certain people I'm not naming that I'm doing my best of trying not to accidentally sound like stereotypical "Feminzilla". Since all us feminists sooo hate men.

 

Wow Detroit wow. Raising the bar yeah

[BlackTezca]

trying not to accidentally sound like stereotypical "Feminzilla".

 

...This should be drawn.

[kaelvan]

...This should be drawn.

Good thing I have all this left over failed sticker bomb material.

 

Feminzilla lives!

[fortheplaid!]

1.)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.

 

 

2.)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.

 

3.) 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

3a) Except, you know, essentially being the villain for every special interest group that exists. Though after reading the Privilege 101 link from our resident lioness, I find I DO understand privilege (in a social justice context) a lot better than I did. Doesnt mean I still dont think its bollocks, but it makes a bit more sense

 

2a) If a woman is being paid less to do the same work as a man, that is discrimination and should be prosecuted under the law. However, if a woman CHOOSES (ie acts like an adult) to either work in a career that pays less, or works less hours, or takes extra perks that men normally dont take (child care, maternity leave, other gynocentric or mostly gynocentric incentives) then her actual TAKE HOME pay will be less, but her RATE of COMPENSATION will be (or at least should be, legally) the same as her male co worker IN THE SAME POSITION/WITH EQUAL SENIORITY

 

2b) Along with 2a, another example of differences in pay is that women tend to take lower paying, safer jobs while men take higher paying, higher risk jobs. Of the top 10 most dangerous jobs in America, 9 out of 10 of them are almost completely male dominated 

 

1a) I could go on and on about this, but I will mention two more that I think will have more impact: 1) Women are not forced to agree to die in order to remain out of prison/have the right to vote (Selective Service requirement) and 2) Women by law are guaranteed bodily integrity (in the West at least). By which I mean female genital cutting is prohibited BY LAW in the US, UK, Canada, etc while the same can not be said to be true of men.

[Rostov]

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.

 

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/

[StillWaters]

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. 

 

IPV in this instance stands for Intimate Partner Violence.

[BlackTezca]

I have to jump in a bit on the wage gap issue.  Yes it is true that women tend to take different jobs than men (and jobs that women do are considered "lesser" than jobs men tend to do, go figure), but if we count for men and women in the same career track...lets' say...software engineering, the gap still exists, even taking account experience and education: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/11/26/top-male-engineers-at-google-make-nearly-20-more-than-their-female-peers/.

 

Thankfully it is at a much smaller degree and I do believe it varies company to company but there is a recognized gap in tech.  There are a lot of reasons for this, ranging from women maybe not pushing for a higher salaries for fear of being seen as to aggressive, maybe their skills are not taken as highly (as one poor computer science student figured out), etc.

 

I love my job, and I'm very happy as a code monkey, and in my workplace I do feel like my skills are rated very highly, even in comparison to some of my male peers, but overall there is a bit of an imbalance.  I personally see it changing for positive, especially as more and more young women come into tech.

 

Edit: as someone who comes from a military family...I don't like the draft and I don't like the fact that women aren't drafted either.  I also don't believe women made that particular rule either.  In January 2013, the Pentagan decided that women are no longer excluded from combat positions, which is speculated to open the doors for Congress to amend the law and remove the exemption for the Selective Service System (Oh Wikipedia and your sources).  I don't really know a whole lot about that law since unlike my father I never served, but it seems that the Military, like tech, is changing for, I'd like to think, the positive as well.

[Hit]

3a) Except, you know, essentially being the villain for every special interest group that exists. Though after reading the Privilege 101 link from our resident lioness, I find I DO understand privilege (in a social justice context) a lot better than I did. Doesnt mean I still dont think its bollocks, but it makes a bit more sense

Thanks for reading it! I hope you keep reading more As that link explains, the ideas of privilege and patriarchy are both quite old now, and society has been advancing throughout that time period. That being said, as we tackle the instances of institutionalised sexism we still deal with the ongoing social problems that tend to bog progress down.

In australia, indigenous australians are recognised as full citizens if our country but this does not mean racism no longer exists. The systems that governed life for so long create long reaching social norms, and take a long time to root out.

Heres a quick mental exercise - think of the word normal. Picture a normal person in your head, what do they look like? Now a normal family. Then a normal school. A normal factory. A normal doctor. A normal lawyer.

Be honest - how many were white? How many were male? "White man" is considered to be the absolute normal in society to the point where on the internet you are largely assumed to be both unless you can prove otherwise (tits or gtfo).

So normal that half our professions are named for men (milkman, mailman, policeman) until we forced ourselves to acknowledge the problem. We still have mankind. No gods or kings, only man.

[dijos]

 

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. 

 

we can start with how men's suicide rate is 2x women's.:

 

https://www.afsp.org/understanding-suicide/facts-and-figures

 

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:

 

https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=xexNxpemvBgC&source=productsearch&utm_source=HA_Desktop_US&utm_medium=SEM&utm_campaign=PLA&pcampaignid=MKTAD0930BO1&gclid=CLqJ6p6Y7sMCFQguaQod3jkAmQ&gclsrc=aw.ds

 

 

We are not allowed to be emotionally or physically  intimate with someone unless we are having sex with that person. This article, (not at all scientific) touches on it:

 

http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/the-good-life-why-men-have-trouble-with-intimacy/

 

 

so, I have never seen these movies made. A movie about how men repress their feelings, suffer in loneliness, and commit suicide probably won't sell. . 

[Hit]

Youre right, nobody knows kurt cobain. Or heath ledger. Or robin williams...

So thats suicide covered. The breakfast club deals with the rest. As does fight club (out of touch with masculinity and not have feelings outside anger). Actually good will hunting deals with that as well. Up in the air tackles the idea that men want more than to be the cool lone wolf. The dependants also deals with that concept along side trying to navigate physical intimacy with people you dont want to have sex with. Lolita follows that theme but from the side of how its dangerous to fail that navigation. Kick ass looks at the male need to be a hero/protector often contradicts his own self interest, but also how this can be a good thing for your growth and taking charge in ones life while maintaining complex relationships with friends family and lovers. Saving private ryan looks at the complex bonds and feelings formed between male soldiers. Jarhead examines this along with the frustration of unused masculine prowess and desperation.

But for movies that deals with all four simulatenously? Into the wild. Moon. Stranger than fiction. Reservoir dogs. The butterfly effect. And those are just the movies in my dvd rack.

[Hit]

Also, those are issues men face, not a secret subculture. Oz is a secret subculture. Fight club is a secret subculture. Romper stomper is a secret subculture. Hell american history x is a sexret subculture.

[Hit]

Oh and if your points were a secret subculture, the shawshank redemption would cover it.

[dijos]

Yeah, I'm bowing out. You're making my point for me. 

[Rostov]

we can start with how men's suicide rate is 2x women's.:

 

https://www.afsp.org/understanding-suicide/facts-and-figures

 

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:

 

https://play.google.com/store/books/details?id=xexNxpemvBgC&source=productsearch&utm_source=HA_Desktop_US&utm_medium=SEM&utm_campaign=PLA&pcampaignid=MKTAD0930BO1&gclid=CLqJ6p6Y7sMCFQguaQod3jkAmQ&gclsrc=aw.ds

 

 

We are not allowed to be emotionally or physically  intimate with someone unless we are having sex with that person. This article, (not at all scientific) touches on it:

 

http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/the-good-life-why-men-have-trouble-with-intimacy/

 

 

so, I have never seen these movies made. A movie about how men repress their feelings, suffer in loneliness, and commit suicide probably won't sell. . 

 

 

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?

[Mark D]

Whenever I hear about the "patriarchy" I envision an Illuminati-esque organization where boys, on their 18th birthday, get a secret decoder ring, a handbook on how to properly oppress women, and learn a secret hand-shake.  We don't.

 

Are there advantages and disadvantages to being a man?  Yes.  Are there advantages and disadvantages to being a woman?  Sure.  The problem is that we tend to see only the disadvantages and we're blind to the advantages. We tend to want to eliminate the disadvantages while keeping the (unseen, at least by us) advantages.  So when someone points out an advantage YOU have, your reaction is "But look at this disadvantage I have!"  So we talk past each other.  I see a lot of talking-past happening here, I've done some of it, and I've seen words zip past me in the other direction.

[Hit]

 

 

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.

 

No, it's not. Because in every facet of our popular culture these themes are explored and dissected and embraced. That's what I'm responding to here, the idea that there is a secret sub-culture of men in general. There isn't, period. 

 

 

Whenever I hear about the "patriarchy" I envision an Illuminati-esque organization where boys, on their 18th birthday, get a secret decoder ring, a handbook on how to properly oppress women, and learn a secret hand-shake.  We don't.

 

<headdesk>

 

 

 

Are there advantages and disadvantages to being a man?  Yes.  Are there advantages and disadvantages to being a woman?  Sure.

 

These sentences are meaningless and not at all what is being discussed. Please go back and read the link I posted. 

 

Also, I just wanted to point that this:

 

 

 

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:

 

is incredibly homophobic and if you hold that as a true belief you need to start working against it.

[Rostov]

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.

[StillWaters]

Interesting post, Rostov. it makes me question and reflect on some of my own childhood experiences and some things I've seen in the recent news. Growing up, I didn't have very many of the typical "girl" interests. But oddly enough, I didn't receive much flack for it. At least not to my knowledge. As was mentioned before, kids, especially little kids, have short attention spans. In elementary school, I loved the Disney movies (90's Disney renaissance FTW!) but had zero interest in dressing up in princess outfits or playing with the dolls, or any dolls for that matter. When people would give me dolls as a birthday gift, I remember being genuinely confused about what to do with it and why anyone considered them fun toys. I was far more interested in the tinker toys. Toys like the mega blocks and Legos. Also video games. My favorites were Super Mario Bros., Sonic, Street Fighter, and Mortal Kombat, until the N64 was released. Then it branched out from there. For TV shows, I did enjoy My Little Pony and Care Bears, which would be expected, but I was also a big fan of Batman, Gargoyles, and Transformers.

 

All of this developed organically. Nobody in my family forced it on me or told me no. The only time it became a problem was at school. Because I didn't have a lot of "girly" interests, most of the kids I played with were boys. Which naturally means that I followed them around at recess and did the things that they did, like mock fighting and daring each other to do stupidly dangerous things. And while those boys didn't have any issue with me being a part of their group, the teachers certainly did. Did I mention that from pre-K to 2nd grade I attended a catholic school with nuns and all the staunch rules that go along with it? At one point, one of the teachers saw us mock fighting and slammed us with a week of detention. Not because we were mock fighting, but because a girl was involved. For the record, nobody ever got seriously hurt, and we all thought it was funny. Not to mention it did nothing to stop us, we just got better at hiding what we did. It wasn't until my family moved and I was enrolled in public school that my circle of friends gradually included more girls.

 

So why am I telling all this? Because while my habits didn't go unnoticed, the pressure to conform wasn't nearly as extreme as what Rostov experienced. Sure, the teachers' comments and prodding were a royal pain in the ass, and the girls during my early grade school years largely excluded me, but that was pretty much it. At no point did anyone ever threaten to hurt me, or harass me in any way and no one ever tried to label me a lesbian. Which reminds me of something I heard on the radio around Halloween last year. A little boy and his older sister wanted to dress up as Anna and Elsa from the movie Frozen, because they both admired these characters and thought 'hey, we're siblings so lets dress up as them for Halloween.'. Apparently a lot of people (mostly men) lost their shit over it. Yet those same people wouldn't bat an eyelash at a girl who dressed up as Optimus Prime or The Flash. The one time I wore a Halloween costume, it was for a party my mother was invited to and I met another girl there who was dressed up as the red ranger from Power Rangers (any season one fans out there?), which, if you know anything about the series, is always male. I don't recall anyone getting their underwear in a knot and spewing angry comments about the "gay agenda". In fact, over the years, I've seen plenty of girls wearing costumes based on male fictional characters and no one cared.

 

So why such an extreme reaction? Why is it that I could watch Gargoyles but a boy who liked watching Care Bears is suddenly gay? 

[Evicious]

Double posts are both manly and womanly.

[Evicious]

 

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.

 

I agree with everything you wrote, Rostov; I just wanted to throw out a couple of examples regarding this bit, in case anyone else reading was searching for one:

 

Parenthood. Military or civil service. Death of a loved one. Homelessness. Chronic or terminal illness. Bankruptcy. Incarceration (jail). Physical deformity or handicap. Mental disorders.

 

Most of us, regardless of our own sex or gender orientation, would never think to argue with someone's interpretation of their experience(s) regarding any of those things. We would acknowledge freely that there was no way we could ever truly understand what they had gone through; we would simply say "Wow", perhaps praise their strength for dealing with the situation to the best of their ability, and ask if there was anything we could do to help them get through it, or its aftermath.

 

You would never look at a parent and say, "It can't be that hard," if you yourself did not have children. You wouldn't try to compare the flu you caught last year to someone's chemo treatment. You wouldn't dream of telling someone with Bipolar Disorder to "get over themselves" and then try to follow up with stories of all the times in your life where you were "waaay more mercurial than you've ever been".

 

So why do we have such a problem with sympathizing, empathizing, or listening with an open mind and compassion, when it comes to something as personally experienced as gender roles?

 

I don't think that's a rhetorical question, nor do I think it is one that should be taken lightly or dismissed out of hand. I think it is one we, as human beings with the capacity for critical thinking, ought to ponder on a regular basis in our own minds and discuss openly, frequently, and with as many other people as we can. I think that by having the courage to let go of our personal emotional attachments to our ideas and experiences of gender role(s), we can begin to try to understand where our social order stands now - and most importantly, begin to understand where we as a collective would like to see changes to it in the future.

[BlackTezca]

So why such an extreme reaction? Why is it that I could watch Gargoyles but a boy who liked watching Care Bears is suddenly gay? 

 

I've noticed this too and it breaks my heart and really frustrates me.  I have a close friend ( close enough that he was my bridesman and I was his groomswomen ).  No one bat an eye at my tomboyish, assertive personality nor my more masculine interests, but some people assumed he was gay (he is happily married to his wife) because compared to me, he seemed passive, a bit more sensitive.  It really got under my skin and you can tell it bothered him even when he laughed it off.

 

I took something personally in this thread that I didn't mention before, but I will mention now:  There was a term thrown around, "neutered male", that deeply offended me.  The hell does that mean?  No one says "spayed female" (unless taking about domesticated animals) and yet "neutered male" was used.  I was not okay with this.  I'm not okay that men who don't fit into someone else's definition of 'manly' and who are not homosexual being called 'neutered'.   Is my close friend 'neutered' since he's not gay but doesn't fit into the box labeled 'men'?  What about other men in my life who enjoy domesticity, don't care for showing aggression, dislike sports?  What if he was in an toxic relationship that was abusive?  We would never call a batter woman 'spayed' but we would use the same concept on a battered man?

 

It really hurts me to think that other people (and it feels like it's other men who judge most harshly) would look down at the men I am close to.  I don't get it, and I hope to never get it cause it's pretty damn unfair.

[TMedina]

What you're seeing is peer pressure reinforcing gender roles.  I've been guilty on both sides, giving and receiving, so please understand I'm explaining what's happening rather than defending the practice.

 

In the commonly held, conventional definitions of masculinity, there are certain expected behaviors: aggressiveness, interests in pro sports, drinking a lot of alcohol, enjoying Hooters for the wings (which were downright bad, honestly), and so forth.  Geographically, it could also expand to things like: enjoying hunting, fishing, and camping.

 

For example: a female friend told me I could upgrade her camping and fishing equipment.  I said I don't do either - certainly not often.  Her response was, "ok fine.  I'll be the man."  She was joking, but it highlights the expectations that men must enjoy certain things; if you don't enjoy these things, or enjoy things assigned to the role of women, like knitting, or cooking, or ballet, you are not a "true" man - which leads to jokes about the status of a male's "masculinity".  Sometimes comparing that male to female genitalia (because the gender normative roles assigned to women are traditionally soft, weak, and demurring to manly men.)  Or that they've been neutered - like what happens to a male dog who then becomes mellow and complacent, versus the behaviors of an "un-snipped" dog.

 

We saw examples of the reverse in the OP's first post: a complaint that women were being un-ladylike.  Which is what?  A complaint that women are deviating from what he perceives to be their gender roles, or from behavior patterns that women should adhere to.  whether that's because it's viewed as being the "proper" behavior, or the belief that it's biologically pre-determined to be soft and weak.

 

Make sense?  For the record, I'm not defending the practice, but I am trying to shed light on the mechanics and rationale that goes into it.  You can also make a case for peer pressure being exerted to force individuals to conform to the dynamics of the group; the group, in this case, determined by gender.

[Suited hippy]

To pop in quickly, I stopped reading, but saw that there was some arguments on wage gap between men and Women. I use to think it was a silly thing, and that it was based on jobs and such... Then I saw this great, and Hilarious video:

 

 

John Oliver is on point with social issues. 

[kaelvan]

IPV in this instance stands for Intimate Partner Violence.

 

Ok that make more sense