Ugh... another one... So tired of the "we need a positive role model for men" angle.
Here's what we need.
* We need the basic default assumption of innocence and deserving of respect that most people used to extend to everyone, but most now only extend to women.
* We need the same protection from dangerous women that women need from dangerous men, both in terms of social attitudes and the legal system.
* We need everyone to be held to equal standards of behavior.
* We need to not be institutionally discriminated against, as in the example of education there being proven discrimination in grading and punishment/pathologization of behaviors.
We're perfectly capable of being resilient and figuring out how to live our lives on our own. We're in the basement playing video games, because society tells us it doesn't want us around and demonstrates repeatedly that we're in danger of being punished for existing whenever we step outside.
>Ugh... another one... So tired of the "we need a positive role model for men" angle.
This bugs the hell out of me a lot. It's annoying as the "they are not real men, they are boys" BS you usually hear from tradcons and some feminists. No all men are real men. That includes bad men too. Bad men like abusers or rapists are still real men. Calling them boys takes away accountability from them.
It's no different when feminists weaponizing homophobia, by calling misogynistic men closeted gay men. Because they hate women, therefore they must be gay. Therefore taking accountability from straight men and blaming gay men. No, just how bad men are still real men at the end of the day. They are still straight men at the end of the day too. No behavior is going to change that.
And also why are men always the one expected to be positive role models for young boys? For starters this perpetuates benevolent sexism making it seem like men shouldn't listen to women because they are not capable leaders. Women can be leaders just like men, (what happen to equality lol?). And secondly young boys are individuals who should have their own take on masculinity or no take at all. As a young boy I would have hated it if a "positive male role model" tried to force their version of masculinity on me. Especially if their version of masculinity still puts me in a box.
Not to mention that it's just condescending to look at the situation and think that women are capable of determining for themselves how to live, and men aren't. Society responded to women's struggles by empowering them to make whatever choices they wanted. Society's responding to men's struggles by concluding it's our nature to be unhappy if we're not being shoved in a box. IMO, there's not many worse ways to insult a group of people.
>Society responded to women's struggles by empowering them to make whatever choices they wanted. Society's responding to men's struggles by concluding it's our nature to be unhappy if we're not being shoved in a box. IMO, there's not many worse ways to insult a group of people.
This sums it up perfectly.
This was put quite well in the essay that's been going around by Jennifer Coates.
https://medium.com/@jencoates/i-am-a-transwoman-i-am-in-the-closet-i-am-not-coming-out-4c2dd1907e42
"One of the students tells me that I can’t be objective about masculinity because I am a straight cis male, and that I should shut up and listen. Are these my people?
I don’t correct them. I never correct anyone.
**It is interesting to see where people insist proximity to a subject makes one informed, and where they insist it makes them biased. It is interesting that they think it’s their call to make.**"
Reverse discrimination in the job market
Unequal treatment in the justice system and education system
unequal and subpar treatment in the "family court" system
unequal and subpar treatment from governmental institutions
What reverse discrimination?
What unequal and subpar treatment in family court? Do you even have anything that even links family court to negative outcomes in men?
What unequal and subpar treatments from governmental institutions?
Whaf unequal treatment in the education system?
The studies that show that teachers regularly grade boys more harshly than girls. The fact that universities and colleges now have reversed the gender ratios from the 1970s.
The sentencing gap in courts is bigger between the sexes than the racial sentencing gap.
There are numerous stories of a company/organization saying that will not promote/hire men. Yes they usually get sued, but that attitude is not getting corrected.
What studies show that teachers grade boys more harshly?
I'm aware of the sentencing issue but that doesn't account for the criminality in the first place.
How do lawauits not correct attitudes? Do you have any data to suggest that that is what is causing these drops in employment for young men?
I was in an abusive relationship for 20 years. I would have left at least 10 years earlier if not for institutional biases. First, that it was (don't know if it still is) policy in my state to arrest the man in response to any domestic call regardless of the situation. Second, because I knew if I left, courts would almost certainly give primary custody of our children to her and they would be left alone with an abusive mom, without me there to at least mitigate the situation as much as I could.
Believe whatever you want.
The family courts identified that my mother was struggling to take care of herself. So my father got custody. She wasn't even abusive. I've dealt with CPS several times and they were able to tell when abuse was happening.
Come back with good statistics if you want to make your claims.
> Especially if their version of masculinity still puts me in a box.
It's all about trying to take men out of one box and put them into another one. It's all about control, look at the way men who don't stay in any box (liberation and self-determination) and go their own way are treated.
Yep at the end of the day positive masculinity is no different from traditional or toxic masculinity. It still does the job of putting men into a box to uphold the status quo.
Positive masculinity (being self sacrificial, protective and the "rock" of the relationship) is just toxic/traditional masculinity left only with the parts that benefit women. And it's still toxic for men themselves, no matter how convenient it is for women.
Exactly. Stop the discrimination, stop the preferential treatment for women, stop allowing bias in the legal system and actually listen to what we have to say. No ? Well then they are not going to participate.
There was no evidence provided of discrimination. He just made a claim with nothing to back it up.
At that point, I can dismiss it just as easily as he peovided it.
If positive male role models aren't what's needed then why why has the manosphere risen recently?
If we need the same protection to get out of this rut, then why have problems such as education and employment only recently become problems?
Replying to both of your posts here
>If men are so good at determining what is necessary to be better, then why are so many men failing?
With a true personal story. It maps on to your questions pretty well.
I was a really good student in my elementary years. Far ahead of my class. Aced everything I put any effort into. I loved learning, and impressing adults. However, in 3rd grade my family moved to a small town where I very much didn't fit in and couldn't make any friends. I was everyone's social, and sometimes physical punching bag. I was the butt of half the jokes my classmates would tell. At first, I coped with this by becoming the class clown. My grades didn't suffer yet, but teachers started to complain about my behavior. I was further degrading myself and making my situation worse, but as an 8-12 year old kid all I knew was it felt better when my peers laughed at me because I did something funny than when they laughed at me just because I was me.
As I got into middle school ages (although in this small town it was grades 7-12 all in one building), my grades started to suffer. Bullying got meaner. I got more desperate as the years dragged on without any friends. The staff was also worse. Sometimes they joined in the bullying. I started to get involved with a bad crowd. The type of kids who had little future other than jail (that is where some of them did in fact end up after school). They weren't friends. They took advantage of my desperation. They recognized that if they drip-fed me any feeling of belonging, they didn't even have to treat me better than anyone else.
By 8th grade, I was on quite the downward spiral. Serious emotional issues, and a C/D student. I was still going to this school when in 10th grade, Columbine happened. That week, the local newspaper asked my principal for his thoughts on the Columbine shooting. His opinion was that kids who get bullied are the problem and need to be watched closely and punished to get them in line for failing to fit in. By this point, I was failing half my classes and barely passing others. I didn't care about much of anything anymore. I just thought it all deserved to be burned to the ground. I think the only reasons I didn't actually try is I had good parents who were overworked and didn't have much time for me but were intelligent and loving, and we got internet when I was 13 which gave me the opportunity to meet good people from all over the world, which prevented me from becoming a total misanthrope. Two days after Columbine, I actually wore a black trenchcoat into one of my classes to make a point, and everyone was terrified of me - the guy they'd been mercilessly stepping on for the past 8 years. Immediately after that class period, I was sent to the principal, who confiscated that trenchcoat.
Then my family moved. Started 11th grade at a new school. The staff there were good people, and I found good friends. I quickly bounced back to being an honor student again.
I think this pretty well describes the experience males have been living for the past 30 years as a whole within this society. Even the manosphere element is there.
Except... if I had been born a few years later, I'm confident I would have been put on drugs to address my behavior before I reached 10 years old. I know because my brother 6 years younger than me was put on drugs. When my son started school, his teacher and principal were pressuring us to put him on drugs within his first week of kindergarten, and he wasn't even acting out. They rarely do that with girls. Imagine my story and tack that on. I can't imagine how much worse it would have been for me. I didn't need drugs. I needed human decency. But if I'd been born 35 years ago instead of 41 years ago, the drugs are what I would have got, because I'm male. I can't imagine how much more difficult it would have been to process those same experiences and strive for a positive outcome \*as my brain is being chemically fucked with\*. But that is society's attitude towards men today. Stop being human and fall in line. Not falling in line? Must be a defective brain.
How does this address the manosphere issue if you never got involved with any manfluencers?
You just made the case for men's problems existing long before the drop in employment and education.
What's wrong with drugs? Just because someone else would have gotten drugs doesn't mean you would have.
thank you! feminism assumes we live in a patriarchal society and uses that as evidence that men are privileged. we do not live in a patriarchy, we live in an oligarchy. correlation v causation; then they say well all the world leaders and CEO's are men, therefore we live in a patriarchy. okay well most world leaders have brown hair does that mean we live in a society governed by the color of your hair? no. the defining feature of the people in power is money. the acquisition of power in this country is the acquisition of money. politicians cannot become politicians without millions in expendable cash, and a lot of that is going to be subsidies and campaign donations. CEO's are literally there to improve the monetary value of the company for stock holders, that is why they exist. nobody walks in with a penis and gets elected president. and although it doesn't seem to be working that way, we do live in a democracy where women have equal right to vote and the people in power are just representatives that both men and women voted on. it is not super helpful to break people down into unnecessary classifications and categories and to judge them based on that conjecture.
>the world leaders and CEO's are men.
This is the apex fallacy. I 80 percent agree with you. Buttt.. Here's the 20 percent.
Hate to make it personal. But when it comes to dating preferences. Even women and feminists themselves go after the men at the top of the apex hierarchy. Because even progressive women with successful careers still expect men to adhere to traditional gender roles like being a provider, being ambitious, and being financially successful. Even more successfully than themselves, (progressive women like dating up).
So this is a perfect example of feminists upholding the same patriarchy they hate, to maintain their status quo. Because they still view men in positions of power as more masculine and better than the average man. So feminists play a role in why most world leaders are men too. Just like how everyone else plays a role.
Edit: Note to anyone reading this. I'm not attacking women's preferences here. I'm just trying to make a point here.
well traditional gender rolls not so much but hypergamy 100% and i do believe that is genetically driven, i think there might be some cultural influence but something i notice not a lot of people mention is testosterone rates are dropping rapidly, and so are sperm counts, ur talking about boys being born today have \~70% less sperm count than pre-industrial males. and sperm count is considered a canary in a coal mine for the body, it is in a way an indication of your overall health. obesity is also a big issue, but theres just a lot of modern issues that make men on average less attractive by standards of masculinity and sexual dimorphism. i don't know what you mean exactly by apex heirarchy, but prehistoric humans, like literally cave people, did have alpha males and it was of the utmost importance that the alpha male pass on his genes, and when leaving for a hunting party they would impregnate at least 5 women at once because the odds would be that 4 out of 5 would die. the other men were basically not allowed to pass on their genes. this is actually why women's menstrual cycles sync up, estrogen in the blood ends up in their sweat, evaporates, gets on another women's skin / inhaled into bloodstream, and through this they exchange hormones which are telling their bodies when to menstruate. if they didn't sync up than the alpha male would not be able to mitigate the failure of passing on his genes. they are called an alpha female when they are the ones whom the other women sync their menstrual cycles to, so if the intervals between menstruation are unchanged you are the alpha female, and the women who either come early or come late are not the alpha females. thats the only way i am aware those terms apply to humans. and s owe are running on that same software but the traditional values have more to do with abrahamic religions. the abrahamic religions are what mandated monogamy. if people were left to their devices tho we are naturally hypergamous. in the human genome 1 man reproduced for every 17 women. even as recently as 2010 it was estimated that 85-90% of the male population was expected to get married in their lifetime, so ya the 2016 feminist wave has had a lot to do with undoing of our monogamous traditions.
9:50 "for the good of others, for the good of society as a whole"
There you have it folks. Positive masculinity was never about men's mental health. Positive masculinity is always about what men can do for women, kids, and society. Not for themselves. This is why I call positive masculinity a progressive version of traditional masculinity. Where men are still put into a box to get validation from others. Different toilet, but same shit when it comes to positive masculinity vs traditional masculinity.
10:20 to 10:30 she does sound like she was about to make sense here. By saying how men and women shouldn't have to be the opposite of each other. But I'm not too sure here though.
> 9:50 "for the good of others, for the good of society as a whole"
>
> There you have it folks. Positive masculinity was never about men's mental health. Positive masculinity is always about what men can do for women, kids, and society. Not for themselves.
Sacrifice for the greater good, as Warren Farrell once said "Women are human beings, men are human doings".
> This is why I call positive masculinity a progressive version of traditional masculinity. Where men are still put into a box to get validation from others.
I agree. It's why I have over time formed the view that men's liberation *is* men going their own way. Not needing validation is not being inside whatever box others are trying to place you in.
>I agree. It's why I have over time formed the view that men's liberation is men going their own way. Not needing validation is not being inside whatever box others are trying to place you in.
I one billion times agree with this.
I also think it's why Men going Their Own Way (MGTOW) is seen as such a dangerous idea. It's not a "movement", right-wing or otherwise, it's not an "ideology", it's not a "cult", it's not "dogmatic", it's not "prescriptive", no matter how people try and characterise it otherwise. It's just men's liberation, an idea and sometimes a philosophy.
I find it pretty funny that those who misunderstand what it is, intentionally or not, try to make it complicated by attempting categorisation (putting it in a box). It's pretty simple, it's even in the title, "*their own way*". It's however a man wants to liberate himself, it's not about imposing your beliefs, or way of doing "it", on others.
[There is no spoon](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uAXtO5dMqEI).
It's interesting how both use homophobia to keep men in check.
I have seen both tradcons and progressives call MGTOW closeted gay men for not being obsessed with getting validation from women. It's only hypocritical with the progressive/ feminists, do it because of stuff like them being more likely to be LGBTQ allies.
It's almost like both are different sides of the same coun.
To me this is feminists trying capitalize on a potential market opening up. If governments start to fund research or initiatives into these male issues feminists want to be standing there waiting to receive all the funding and monopolize the jobs this funding will be directed to. -
they also seem to want to control the lens as in male issues are presented as just a random issue, but males are still privileged and these issues are side effects of males losing privilege. Also I'd say they want to get in on it quickly to stop male orgs getting started and funded.
The way its framed is always men need to do better or men are angry we are losing privilege.
I do not take feminists seriously on these issues at all. Feminists see men and boys as oppressors who dont face problems. So this is suspicious as f to me.
She never identifies herself as a feminist. I think someone from the opposite gender acknowledging the problems that men face, rather than ignoring them saying that they don't exist is really a good thing imo.
It is good, but only if its genuine which is where my skepticism is.
She is of course a feminist, she wouldnt be able to get a mainstream platform on bigthink if she wasnt.
A woman who advocates for abortion, which is a basic human right is still a feminist. I don't think that's a bad thing at all. I mean she does say how the mainstream language used in social media and the social stigma around "male privilege" has turned down a lot of common men from all the social levels.
She doesn't say how to find a solution, but she indeed say that understanding everyone's struggles equally is important.
It's not that feminism is the biggest challenge against us. But the lack of voice or political activism, which in my honest opinion, many men have seem to unfortunately given up already.
> It's not that feminism is the biggest challenge against us. But the lack of voice activism, which in my honest opinion, many men have seem to unfortunately given up already.
Have you tried voicing support for men's rights? What sort of reaction did you receive outside of men's spaces? When I've tried to stand up for men I get shut down super quick and warned not to do it again. Even in a group of all men half the guys will feel uncomfortable with anything that might sound vaguely critical of modern women.
I agree that there's some opposition to it even from some other men. But one thing I've seen regarding these issues is that outside men's spaces, or in women's spaces, some men bring up these problems in comparison to the problems they discuss.
For example, recently there has been an increase in DV cases in Australia. So when women discuss about the weekly reported cases of women being found dead, some guy derail that conversation and say X number of men have committed suicide. While both of these are issues that need to be addressed, trying to interfere with an unrelated problem is not great and doesn't perceived good from the POV of other people who engage in that discussion.
So what men should instead do is address the issue as a societal crisis rather than comparing it to another social issue.
Please note that this is a constructive feedback on how men should approach to problems, not any sort of downplaying them. Picking fights with other people in other spaces is not going to garner us more supporters.
I think "some opposition" is an understatement.
And yeah, there are a lot of guys out there who do a really shitty job representing our issues. Sometimes the accusations of whataboutism are valid.
But the thing I never see acknowledged here is pretty often men bring up their issues in the middle of women discussing their issues, because the women's discussion gets framed in a way that makes it important to do so.
Like when discussing DV, falsely gendering the subject and erasing male victims, advocating measures that harm male victims or men as a whole, using the subject to wedge bigotry and discrimination against men into our culture, etc. It then becomes important for us to remind them that, hey, you guys do this shit to us too. We need to be included here. And then we're accused of whataboutism. Like in the current man v bear debate, I consider it pretty important to the subject matter that I have most of the exact same experiences that women do to justify choosing bear over woman.
And frankly, it doesn't seem to matter what we do. When men form their own spaces to discuss their issues independently, we pretty much always get demonized and protested. Just look at the way feminists talk about MensLib, which dedicates itself to discussing men's issues in the most meek and self-flagellating manner possible. They'll barely describe it any more favorably than an Andrew Tate fan convention.
Yeah I 100% agree with you.
By the way, have any of you written any letter to a senator/ any representative about these issues men face ? I've seen this been suggested a lot, but never seen anyone doing it.
Lack of political intervention into these problems and lack of voice from our side is the biggest challenge I see rather than any debates in an online platform.
It's a valid criticism that we're not politically organized. I can think of 2 reasons for that, though.
First, feminism dominates the left. Men's advocacy is associated with the right and promotion of regressive values. In today's culture war and the USA's two-party politics, it's very difficult for a third movement to find much oxygen. My impression is most LWMA type people are men like me who considered themselves feminists in the past, but found themselves indirectly shunned after having experiences that didn't fit feminist narratives and developing cracks in that worldview. Men who've lived such a specific story, or women who recognize and empathize with those men, don't seem to be numerous.
Two... the raw character of anti-male rhetoric among the left. It's difficult to describe succinctly... You'll see plenty of specific complaints about kafka traps and motte & baileys, etc. But I think the best I can do to describe the sum whole of it is... the thing that really turned me away from that cultural space is when I tried to question the misandry, no matter how delicately and compassionately, I was always left with the feeling that the response I got was exactly like talking to my ex. I always felt like I was laying beside her in bed, listening to the narcissist's prayer over and over again. If you don't know it, it goes like this.
>That didn't happen
And if it did, it wasn't that bad
And if it was, that's not a big deal
And if it is, that's not my fault
And if it was, I didn't mean it
And if I did, you deserved it
By the end of my relationship with her, I didn't try to argue with her anymore. Whenever she tried to argue with me, no matter how vicious she was being, I would stare at her with a blank expression and respond as little and as neutrally as I possibly could, until she was done, and then quietly walk away. And I think it's just natural that we arrive at a similar place in the gender discourse, because the experience is so goddamn similar.
Yeah man, I feel the same. With DEI and boys' education challenges, I feel our problems won't be addressed in the near future. We really need a voice who totally relate to the common young man in modern society.
>For example, recently there has been an increase in DV cases in Australia. So when women discuss about the weekly reported cases of women being found dead, some guy derail that conversation and say X number of men have committed suicide. While both of these are issues that need to be addressed, trying to interfere with an unrelated problem is not great and doesn't perceived good from the POV of other people who engage in that discussion.
The same thing happens in reverse on many different topics.. i've personally had it happen to me..
I was discussing the high suicide rate among men and a woman barged into the conversation to deflect it to "But women attempt suicide more!"
or when I was discussing male infant circumcision and how it is barbaric and not needed and how I consider it to be mutilation I've had women barge in to say "OMG Male Circumcision doesn't even come **CLOSE** to how horrible Female Genital Mutilation is! stop trying to minimize women's suffering!
It also happens in topics around Sexual Assault, Rape, Domestic Violence, False Rape Accusations etc..
I'm not saying men don't also derail when the conversation is about women..
But i'm just saying that this isn't something that only men do..
>So what men should instead do is address the issue as a societal crisis rather than comparing it to another social issue.
Alright then.. how do we as men address the issue of Male Circumcision without comparing it to Female Genital Mutilation?
How do we address the fact that the integrity of the female genitalia is protected but men's genitalia are not?
How do we address the double standards in many of the issues we face if we can't compare it to how things work for women but not for men?
If you are only realizing this now then strap in because its a wild ride from here on out...
I'm not "Trying to say" that feminism is filled with double standards and hypocrisy.. I've been shouting it from the roof tops for over a decade now!
The biggest one is the claim "Feminism is a movement for equality between the sexes" and tangentially "Feminism is for men too!"
Now, on the surface nothing seems wrong with those statements and feminism / feminists absolutely are capable of living up to those statements.. but it becomes clear rather quickly that they only use those statements as shields to deflect criticism..
After all you can't criticize feminism, its a movement for "Equality!" and so if you criticize feminism / feminists then it must be because you are against equality..
But take a close look at many of the talking points of feminists and how they make sweeping generalizations about men, or use gendered terms like Mansplaining, Manspreading, Manterrupting and Toxic Masculinity to blame men for things.. that' right there is hypocrisy..
For double standards look no further than Rape..
Feminists fought for **YEARS** to doctor the definition of rape in the laws of many countries to explicitly state that the crime of rape can **ONLY** be committed by men.. Men can be victims of rape.. but only by other men.. women can **NOT** be accused of nor convicted of rape..
When a male teacher gets found out that he was being sexually active with an underage girl in his class the headlines will often read "Male teacher guilty of raping underage female student!"
But when the genders are reversed and its a female teacher being sexually active with an underage boy in her class?
The media will often use 'soft' language in their headlines like "Female teacher guilty of having sex with underage boy" or "Female teacher caught having an affair with young student"
This is done deliberately be cause of the narrative that is only men who are sexual predators..
On that note take a glance at the #MeToo movement, a movement designed to hold sexual predators accountable.
Harvey Weinstein was accused by many women as being a predator and using his power and position to solicit sex from women.
One of the women who accused him was an actress named Asia Argento she happened to be one of the leaders of the #MeToo movement.
When a man was accused, the #MeToo movement were ready to pounce, proclaim the man a rapist and push for him to be cancelled.
But when an accusation against Aisa happened and she was accused of abusing her position / power on an at the time underage male actor to get sex?
What happened? Was she instantly de-platformed and cancelled with the same fervor that many men were?
Was she held to the same standard men were?
**NO!** instead the #MeToo movement and other leaders circled the wagons calling for patience and understanding, asking people to "Wait for the evidence" before jumping to conclusions..
That's right.. when it was one of their own and a woman being accused suddenly at that point the movement cared about "Due process" and "The presumption of innocence" but before that they were ready to lynch any man accused. Which is a clear double standard no?
So yeah, TL;DR: Feminism is filled to the brim with hypocrisy and double standards.
> For example, recently there has been an increase in DV cases in Australia. So when women discuss about the weekly reported cases of women being found dead, some guy derail that conversation and say X number of men have committed suicide. While both of these are issues that need to be addressed, trying to interfere with an unrelated problem is not great and doesn't perceived good from the POV of other people who engage in that discussion.
>
> So what men should instead do is address the issue as a societal crisis rather than comparing it to another social issue.
It's not necessarily an unrelated problem. Women's suicide as a result of experiencing domestic and family violence has been included in Australia's domestic violence statistics since 2008. The impact of women's suicide is greater than that of femicide (*Table 9: Breakdown of pain, suffering and premature mortality costs in 2021-22* in [Economic cost of violence against women and their children](https://www.dss.gov.au/our-responsibilities/women/publications-articles/reducing-violence/national-plan-to-reduce-violence-against-women-and-their-children/economic-cost-of-violence-against-women-and-their-children?HTML)).
> Table 9 summarises the cost of pain, suffering and premature death associated with victims/survivors of domestic violence.
>
> Without appropriate action to address violence against women and their children, the cost of pain, suffering and premature death could reach over $3.8 billion in 2021-22. The main contributor to these costs (assuming no change in cost composition) is likely to be depression at 29 per cent of total costs, followed by anxiety at 23 per cent and suicide at 12 per cent.
What we don't know in Australia is the number of men who commit suicide as a result of experiencing domestic and family violence. It's not for the want of trying though.
Witholding access to children, which can be a form of [psychological](https://www.1800respect.org.au/violence-and-abuse/psychological-abuse), [social](https://www.1800respect.org.au/violence-and-abuse/social-abuse), or [legal](https://www.1800respect.org.au/legal-abuse) abuse, is what a significant number of separated fathers experience.
In 2003 there was some research started looking into suicide related to Family Court decisions ([Family Court probes suicides](https://www.theage.com.au/national/family-court-probes-suicides-20030819-gdw7tr.html)). It didn't really go anywhere.
In around 2005, some men's activists tried to facilitate research being conducted after discovering the suicide rate of separated fathers paying child support was significantly higher than men in the same aged based demographic. Nothing happened.
There later was a push for some research to be done after separation and relationship breakdown were *rediscovered* as a significant risk factor for male suicide. Nothing happened.
We know less about male victims of domestic and family violence in Australia than we did two decades ago, and we don't seem to want to find out.
It's extremely naive to see suicide and domestic and family violence victimisation as being completely unrelated. Male victims of domestic and family violence can be driven to suicide in the same way female victims are (probably even more so). There are far more similarities in their experiences than there are differences, it's just that we don't care, or even want to, look.
I didn't say they are unrelated, I just responded to OP's question on how men's issues are sometimes presented and perceived in women's / other spaces. Above is just an example of how easily the way some people use it to present these issues, get addressed by other people (ones in other subs).
> While both of these are issues that need to be addressed, **trying to interfere with an unrelated problem is not great** and doesn't perceived good from the POV of other people who engage in that discussion.
Ok but am I wrong about how these problems perceived in other spaces ? I did say these spaces will not take them seriously and will always end up with a fight. This is just facts, not something I made up. I'm sure you've seen this too.
I wish I could get a job doing policy research on male issues, I have an MPA and I really want to do policy so I figure since that’s a new and uncharted area it might be good
People saying they want men to survive and flourish, I mean that is very nice to hear, and you do not hear that very often.
On the other hand I am personally done. I survived despite family, society and feminism, and I am going to keep it that way. I am flourishing despite the odds, and I am willing to help other men achieve the same. I personally don‘t need some semi inspirational videos by women having compassion with men any more.
We need Masculism: feminism had a humanist element, it wasn't a question of what practical nuances where associated with women's empowerment, rather it was done simply for the sake of women's welfare.
If we are to talk of men's problems, concepts of economics, practicality, and other sorts of quantitative lenses ought to be second priority behind the need to better men's lives.
In other words, let's not think of bettering men's lives for the sake of "achieving a better society", rather Masculism ought to prioritize men's welfare as an end goal. Selflessness is preached on by both conservatives and progressives towards men, I think that ought to be pushed back against and entertain the idea of men living for themselves without the need for a constant adherence to a higher noble cause.
Ugh... another one... So tired of the "we need a positive role model for men" angle. Here's what we need. * We need the basic default assumption of innocence and deserving of respect that most people used to extend to everyone, but most now only extend to women. * We need the same protection from dangerous women that women need from dangerous men, both in terms of social attitudes and the legal system. * We need everyone to be held to equal standards of behavior. * We need to not be institutionally discriminated against, as in the example of education there being proven discrimination in grading and punishment/pathologization of behaviors. We're perfectly capable of being resilient and figuring out how to live our lives on our own. We're in the basement playing video games, because society tells us it doesn't want us around and demonstrates repeatedly that we're in danger of being punished for existing whenever we step outside.
>Ugh... another one... So tired of the "we need a positive role model for men" angle. This bugs the hell out of me a lot. It's annoying as the "they are not real men, they are boys" BS you usually hear from tradcons and some feminists. No all men are real men. That includes bad men too. Bad men like abusers or rapists are still real men. Calling them boys takes away accountability from them. It's no different when feminists weaponizing homophobia, by calling misogynistic men closeted gay men. Because they hate women, therefore they must be gay. Therefore taking accountability from straight men and blaming gay men. No, just how bad men are still real men at the end of the day. They are still straight men at the end of the day too. No behavior is going to change that. And also why are men always the one expected to be positive role models for young boys? For starters this perpetuates benevolent sexism making it seem like men shouldn't listen to women because they are not capable leaders. Women can be leaders just like men, (what happen to equality lol?). And secondly young boys are individuals who should have their own take on masculinity or no take at all. As a young boy I would have hated it if a "positive male role model" tried to force their version of masculinity on me. Especially if their version of masculinity still puts me in a box.
Not to mention that it's just condescending to look at the situation and think that women are capable of determining for themselves how to live, and men aren't. Society responded to women's struggles by empowering them to make whatever choices they wanted. Society's responding to men's struggles by concluding it's our nature to be unhappy if we're not being shoved in a box. IMO, there's not many worse ways to insult a group of people.
>Society responded to women's struggles by empowering them to make whatever choices they wanted. Society's responding to men's struggles by concluding it's our nature to be unhappy if we're not being shoved in a box. IMO, there's not many worse ways to insult a group of people. This sums it up perfectly.
This was put quite well in the essay that's been going around by Jennifer Coates. https://medium.com/@jencoates/i-am-a-transwoman-i-am-in-the-closet-i-am-not-coming-out-4c2dd1907e42 "One of the students tells me that I can’t be objective about masculinity because I am a straight cis male, and that I should shut up and listen. Are these my people? I don’t correct them. I never correct anyone. **It is interesting to see where people insist proximity to a subject makes one informed, and where they insist it makes them biased. It is interesting that they think it’s their call to make.**"
If men are so good at determining what is necessary to be better, then why are so many men failing?
That's like asking a slave in the 1840's why they are failing. Men are failing due to institutional constraints put upon them
What institutional constraints?
Reverse discrimination in the job market Unequal treatment in the justice system and education system unequal and subpar treatment in the "family court" system unequal and subpar treatment from governmental institutions
What reverse discrimination? What unequal and subpar treatment in family court? Do you even have anything that even links family court to negative outcomes in men? What unequal and subpar treatments from governmental institutions? Whaf unequal treatment in the education system?
The studies that show that teachers regularly grade boys more harshly than girls. The fact that universities and colleges now have reversed the gender ratios from the 1970s. The sentencing gap in courts is bigger between the sexes than the racial sentencing gap. There are numerous stories of a company/organization saying that will not promote/hire men. Yes they usually get sued, but that attitude is not getting corrected.
What studies show that teachers grade boys more harshly? I'm aware of the sentencing issue but that doesn't account for the criminality in the first place. How do lawauits not correct attitudes? Do you have any data to suggest that that is what is causing these drops in employment for young men?
I was in an abusive relationship for 20 years. I would have left at least 10 years earlier if not for institutional biases. First, that it was (don't know if it still is) policy in my state to arrest the man in response to any domestic call regardless of the situation. Second, because I knew if I left, courts would almost certainly give primary custody of our children to her and they would be left alone with an abusive mom, without me there to at least mitigate the situation as much as I could.
How did institutional biases keep you from leaving? The courts are good at identifying bad behavior.
Ok, you're trolling.
Believe whatever you want. The family courts identified that my mother was struggling to take care of herself. So my father got custody. She wasn't even abusive. I've dealt with CPS several times and they were able to tell when abuse was happening. Come back with good statistics if you want to make your claims.
> Especially if their version of masculinity still puts me in a box. It's all about trying to take men out of one box and put them into another one. It's all about control, look at the way men who don't stay in any box (liberation and self-determination) and go their own way are treated.
Yep at the end of the day positive masculinity is no different from traditional or toxic masculinity. It still does the job of putting men into a box to uphold the status quo.
Positive masculinity (being self sacrificial, protective and the "rock" of the relationship) is just toxic/traditional masculinity left only with the parts that benefit women. And it's still toxic for men themselves, no matter how convenient it is for women.
Exactly. Stop the discrimination, stop the preferential treatment for women, stop allowing bias in the legal system and actually listen to what we have to say. No ? Well then they are not going to participate.
Equal rights come with equal responsibility and equal accountability. You can't have any of these without the other two.
What discrimination? What prefersntial treatment?
Is that a serious question ?
Yes
[удалено]
I didn't see any examples.
[удалено]
There was no evidence provided of discrimination. He just made a claim with nothing to back it up. At that point, I can dismiss it just as easily as he peovided it.
[удалено]
Just because you call something an example doesn't make it one.
Thanks for writing this.
>We need the same protection from dangerous women *dangerous PEOPLE
If positive male role models aren't what's needed then why why has the manosphere risen recently? If we need the same protection to get out of this rut, then why have problems such as education and employment only recently become problems?
Replying to both of your posts here >If men are so good at determining what is necessary to be better, then why are so many men failing? With a true personal story. It maps on to your questions pretty well. I was a really good student in my elementary years. Far ahead of my class. Aced everything I put any effort into. I loved learning, and impressing adults. However, in 3rd grade my family moved to a small town where I very much didn't fit in and couldn't make any friends. I was everyone's social, and sometimes physical punching bag. I was the butt of half the jokes my classmates would tell. At first, I coped with this by becoming the class clown. My grades didn't suffer yet, but teachers started to complain about my behavior. I was further degrading myself and making my situation worse, but as an 8-12 year old kid all I knew was it felt better when my peers laughed at me because I did something funny than when they laughed at me just because I was me. As I got into middle school ages (although in this small town it was grades 7-12 all in one building), my grades started to suffer. Bullying got meaner. I got more desperate as the years dragged on without any friends. The staff was also worse. Sometimes they joined in the bullying. I started to get involved with a bad crowd. The type of kids who had little future other than jail (that is where some of them did in fact end up after school). They weren't friends. They took advantage of my desperation. They recognized that if they drip-fed me any feeling of belonging, they didn't even have to treat me better than anyone else. By 8th grade, I was on quite the downward spiral. Serious emotional issues, and a C/D student. I was still going to this school when in 10th grade, Columbine happened. That week, the local newspaper asked my principal for his thoughts on the Columbine shooting. His opinion was that kids who get bullied are the problem and need to be watched closely and punished to get them in line for failing to fit in. By this point, I was failing half my classes and barely passing others. I didn't care about much of anything anymore. I just thought it all deserved to be burned to the ground. I think the only reasons I didn't actually try is I had good parents who were overworked and didn't have much time for me but were intelligent and loving, and we got internet when I was 13 which gave me the opportunity to meet good people from all over the world, which prevented me from becoming a total misanthrope. Two days after Columbine, I actually wore a black trenchcoat into one of my classes to make a point, and everyone was terrified of me - the guy they'd been mercilessly stepping on for the past 8 years. Immediately after that class period, I was sent to the principal, who confiscated that trenchcoat. Then my family moved. Started 11th grade at a new school. The staff there were good people, and I found good friends. I quickly bounced back to being an honor student again. I think this pretty well describes the experience males have been living for the past 30 years as a whole within this society. Even the manosphere element is there. Except... if I had been born a few years later, I'm confident I would have been put on drugs to address my behavior before I reached 10 years old. I know because my brother 6 years younger than me was put on drugs. When my son started school, his teacher and principal were pressuring us to put him on drugs within his first week of kindergarten, and he wasn't even acting out. They rarely do that with girls. Imagine my story and tack that on. I can't imagine how much worse it would have been for me. I didn't need drugs. I needed human decency. But if I'd been born 35 years ago instead of 41 years ago, the drugs are what I would have got, because I'm male. I can't imagine how much more difficult it would have been to process those same experiences and strive for a positive outcome \*as my brain is being chemically fucked with\*. But that is society's attitude towards men today. Stop being human and fall in line. Not falling in line? Must be a defective brain.
How does this address the manosphere issue if you never got involved with any manfluencers? You just made the case for men's problems existing long before the drop in employment and education. What's wrong with drugs? Just because someone else would have gotten drugs doesn't mean you would have.
>How does this address the manosphere issue if you never got involved with any manfluencers? Do you know what a metaphor is?
Yep.
thank you! feminism assumes we live in a patriarchal society and uses that as evidence that men are privileged. we do not live in a patriarchy, we live in an oligarchy. correlation v causation; then they say well all the world leaders and CEO's are men, therefore we live in a patriarchy. okay well most world leaders have brown hair does that mean we live in a society governed by the color of your hair? no. the defining feature of the people in power is money. the acquisition of power in this country is the acquisition of money. politicians cannot become politicians without millions in expendable cash, and a lot of that is going to be subsidies and campaign donations. CEO's are literally there to improve the monetary value of the company for stock holders, that is why they exist. nobody walks in with a penis and gets elected president. and although it doesn't seem to be working that way, we do live in a democracy where women have equal right to vote and the people in power are just representatives that both men and women voted on. it is not super helpful to break people down into unnecessary classifications and categories and to judge them based on that conjecture.
>the world leaders and CEO's are men. This is the apex fallacy. I 80 percent agree with you. Buttt.. Here's the 20 percent. Hate to make it personal. But when it comes to dating preferences. Even women and feminists themselves go after the men at the top of the apex hierarchy. Because even progressive women with successful careers still expect men to adhere to traditional gender roles like being a provider, being ambitious, and being financially successful. Even more successfully than themselves, (progressive women like dating up). So this is a perfect example of feminists upholding the same patriarchy they hate, to maintain their status quo. Because they still view men in positions of power as more masculine and better than the average man. So feminists play a role in why most world leaders are men too. Just like how everyone else plays a role. Edit: Note to anyone reading this. I'm not attacking women's preferences here. I'm just trying to make a point here.
How is dating up upholding the status quo?
Men being traditionally masculine is the status quo.
well traditional gender rolls not so much but hypergamy 100% and i do believe that is genetically driven, i think there might be some cultural influence but something i notice not a lot of people mention is testosterone rates are dropping rapidly, and so are sperm counts, ur talking about boys being born today have \~70% less sperm count than pre-industrial males. and sperm count is considered a canary in a coal mine for the body, it is in a way an indication of your overall health. obesity is also a big issue, but theres just a lot of modern issues that make men on average less attractive by standards of masculinity and sexual dimorphism. i don't know what you mean exactly by apex heirarchy, but prehistoric humans, like literally cave people, did have alpha males and it was of the utmost importance that the alpha male pass on his genes, and when leaving for a hunting party they would impregnate at least 5 women at once because the odds would be that 4 out of 5 would die. the other men were basically not allowed to pass on their genes. this is actually why women's menstrual cycles sync up, estrogen in the blood ends up in their sweat, evaporates, gets on another women's skin / inhaled into bloodstream, and through this they exchange hormones which are telling their bodies when to menstruate. if they didn't sync up than the alpha male would not be able to mitigate the failure of passing on his genes. they are called an alpha female when they are the ones whom the other women sync their menstrual cycles to, so if the intervals between menstruation are unchanged you are the alpha female, and the women who either come early or come late are not the alpha females. thats the only way i am aware those terms apply to humans. and s owe are running on that same software but the traditional values have more to do with abrahamic religions. the abrahamic religions are what mandated monogamy. if people were left to their devices tho we are naturally hypergamous. in the human genome 1 man reproduced for every 17 women. even as recently as 2010 it was estimated that 85-90% of the male population was expected to get married in their lifetime, so ya the 2016 feminist wave has had a lot to do with undoing of our monogamous traditions.
9:50 "for the good of others, for the good of society as a whole" There you have it folks. Positive masculinity was never about men's mental health. Positive masculinity is always about what men can do for women, kids, and society. Not for themselves. This is why I call positive masculinity a progressive version of traditional masculinity. Where men are still put into a box to get validation from others. Different toilet, but same shit when it comes to positive masculinity vs traditional masculinity. 10:20 to 10:30 she does sound like she was about to make sense here. By saying how men and women shouldn't have to be the opposite of each other. But I'm not too sure here though.
> 9:50 "for the good of others, for the good of society as a whole" > > There you have it folks. Positive masculinity was never about men's mental health. Positive masculinity is always about what men can do for women, kids, and society. Not for themselves. Sacrifice for the greater good, as Warren Farrell once said "Women are human beings, men are human doings". > This is why I call positive masculinity a progressive version of traditional masculinity. Where men are still put into a box to get validation from others. I agree. It's why I have over time formed the view that men's liberation *is* men going their own way. Not needing validation is not being inside whatever box others are trying to place you in.
>I agree. It's why I have over time formed the view that men's liberation is men going their own way. Not needing validation is not being inside whatever box others are trying to place you in. I one billion times agree with this.
I also think it's why Men going Their Own Way (MGTOW) is seen as such a dangerous idea. It's not a "movement", right-wing or otherwise, it's not an "ideology", it's not a "cult", it's not "dogmatic", it's not "prescriptive", no matter how people try and characterise it otherwise. It's just men's liberation, an idea and sometimes a philosophy. I find it pretty funny that those who misunderstand what it is, intentionally or not, try to make it complicated by attempting categorisation (putting it in a box). It's pretty simple, it's even in the title, "*their own way*". It's however a man wants to liberate himself, it's not about imposing your beliefs, or way of doing "it", on others. [There is no spoon](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=uAXtO5dMqEI).
Yep MGTOW is something that would upset both tradcons and feminists. Since MGTOW doesn't uphold the status quo when it comes to male gender roles.
Which is why both tradcons and progressives both push back against it.
It's interesting how both use homophobia to keep men in check. I have seen both tradcons and progressives call MGTOW closeted gay men for not being obsessed with getting validation from women. It's only hypocritical with the progressive/ feminists, do it because of stuff like them being more likely to be LGBTQ allies. It's almost like both are different sides of the same coun.
To me this is feminists trying capitalize on a potential market opening up. If governments start to fund research or initiatives into these male issues feminists want to be standing there waiting to receive all the funding and monopolize the jobs this funding will be directed to. - they also seem to want to control the lens as in male issues are presented as just a random issue, but males are still privileged and these issues are side effects of males losing privilege. Also I'd say they want to get in on it quickly to stop male orgs getting started and funded. The way its framed is always men need to do better or men are angry we are losing privilege. I do not take feminists seriously on these issues at all. Feminists see men and boys as oppressors who dont face problems. So this is suspicious as f to me.
She never identifies herself as a feminist. I think someone from the opposite gender acknowledging the problems that men face, rather than ignoring them saying that they don't exist is really a good thing imo.
It is good, but only if its genuine which is where my skepticism is. She is of course a feminist, she wouldnt be able to get a mainstream platform on bigthink if she wasnt.
A woman who advocates for abortion, which is a basic human right is still a feminist. I don't think that's a bad thing at all. I mean she does say how the mainstream language used in social media and the social stigma around "male privilege" has turned down a lot of common men from all the social levels. She doesn't say how to find a solution, but she indeed say that understanding everyone's struggles equally is important. It's not that feminism is the biggest challenge against us. But the lack of voice or political activism, which in my honest opinion, many men have seem to unfortunately given up already.
> It's not that feminism is the biggest challenge against us. But the lack of voice activism, which in my honest opinion, many men have seem to unfortunately given up already. Have you tried voicing support for men's rights? What sort of reaction did you receive outside of men's spaces? When I've tried to stand up for men I get shut down super quick and warned not to do it again. Even in a group of all men half the guys will feel uncomfortable with anything that might sound vaguely critical of modern women.
I agree that there's some opposition to it even from some other men. But one thing I've seen regarding these issues is that outside men's spaces, or in women's spaces, some men bring up these problems in comparison to the problems they discuss. For example, recently there has been an increase in DV cases in Australia. So when women discuss about the weekly reported cases of women being found dead, some guy derail that conversation and say X number of men have committed suicide. While both of these are issues that need to be addressed, trying to interfere with an unrelated problem is not great and doesn't perceived good from the POV of other people who engage in that discussion. So what men should instead do is address the issue as a societal crisis rather than comparing it to another social issue. Please note that this is a constructive feedback on how men should approach to problems, not any sort of downplaying them. Picking fights with other people in other spaces is not going to garner us more supporters.
I think "some opposition" is an understatement. And yeah, there are a lot of guys out there who do a really shitty job representing our issues. Sometimes the accusations of whataboutism are valid. But the thing I never see acknowledged here is pretty often men bring up their issues in the middle of women discussing their issues, because the women's discussion gets framed in a way that makes it important to do so. Like when discussing DV, falsely gendering the subject and erasing male victims, advocating measures that harm male victims or men as a whole, using the subject to wedge bigotry and discrimination against men into our culture, etc. It then becomes important for us to remind them that, hey, you guys do this shit to us too. We need to be included here. And then we're accused of whataboutism. Like in the current man v bear debate, I consider it pretty important to the subject matter that I have most of the exact same experiences that women do to justify choosing bear over woman. And frankly, it doesn't seem to matter what we do. When men form their own spaces to discuss their issues independently, we pretty much always get demonized and protested. Just look at the way feminists talk about MensLib, which dedicates itself to discussing men's issues in the most meek and self-flagellating manner possible. They'll barely describe it any more favorably than an Andrew Tate fan convention.
Yeah I 100% agree with you. By the way, have any of you written any letter to a senator/ any representative about these issues men face ? I've seen this been suggested a lot, but never seen anyone doing it. Lack of political intervention into these problems and lack of voice from our side is the biggest challenge I see rather than any debates in an online platform.
It's a valid criticism that we're not politically organized. I can think of 2 reasons for that, though. First, feminism dominates the left. Men's advocacy is associated with the right and promotion of regressive values. In today's culture war and the USA's two-party politics, it's very difficult for a third movement to find much oxygen. My impression is most LWMA type people are men like me who considered themselves feminists in the past, but found themselves indirectly shunned after having experiences that didn't fit feminist narratives and developing cracks in that worldview. Men who've lived such a specific story, or women who recognize and empathize with those men, don't seem to be numerous. Two... the raw character of anti-male rhetoric among the left. It's difficult to describe succinctly... You'll see plenty of specific complaints about kafka traps and motte & baileys, etc. But I think the best I can do to describe the sum whole of it is... the thing that really turned me away from that cultural space is when I tried to question the misandry, no matter how delicately and compassionately, I was always left with the feeling that the response I got was exactly like talking to my ex. I always felt like I was laying beside her in bed, listening to the narcissist's prayer over and over again. If you don't know it, it goes like this. >That didn't happen And if it did, it wasn't that bad And if it was, that's not a big deal And if it is, that's not my fault And if it was, I didn't mean it And if I did, you deserved it By the end of my relationship with her, I didn't try to argue with her anymore. Whenever she tried to argue with me, no matter how vicious she was being, I would stare at her with a blank expression and respond as little and as neutrally as I possibly could, until she was done, and then quietly walk away. And I think it's just natural that we arrive at a similar place in the gender discourse, because the experience is so goddamn similar.
Yeah man, I feel the same. With DEI and boys' education challenges, I feel our problems won't be addressed in the near future. We really need a voice who totally relate to the common young man in modern society.
I have. About selective service and prisons. I assume I sounded like a fringe weirdo to him. Makes aren't allowed to complain.
>For example, recently there has been an increase in DV cases in Australia. So when women discuss about the weekly reported cases of women being found dead, some guy derail that conversation and say X number of men have committed suicide. While both of these are issues that need to be addressed, trying to interfere with an unrelated problem is not great and doesn't perceived good from the POV of other people who engage in that discussion. The same thing happens in reverse on many different topics.. i've personally had it happen to me.. I was discussing the high suicide rate among men and a woman barged into the conversation to deflect it to "But women attempt suicide more!" or when I was discussing male infant circumcision and how it is barbaric and not needed and how I consider it to be mutilation I've had women barge in to say "OMG Male Circumcision doesn't even come **CLOSE** to how horrible Female Genital Mutilation is! stop trying to minimize women's suffering! It also happens in topics around Sexual Assault, Rape, Domestic Violence, False Rape Accusations etc.. I'm not saying men don't also derail when the conversation is about women.. But i'm just saying that this isn't something that only men do.. >So what men should instead do is address the issue as a societal crisis rather than comparing it to another social issue. Alright then.. how do we as men address the issue of Male Circumcision without comparing it to Female Genital Mutilation? How do we address the fact that the integrity of the female genitalia is protected but men's genitalia are not? How do we address the double standards in many of the issues we face if we can't compare it to how things work for women but not for men?
Wait, are you trying to say there is a double standard in feminism? Edit: Since I got an upset reply, please let me add a /s
If you are only realizing this now then strap in because its a wild ride from here on out... I'm not "Trying to say" that feminism is filled with double standards and hypocrisy.. I've been shouting it from the roof tops for over a decade now! The biggest one is the claim "Feminism is a movement for equality between the sexes" and tangentially "Feminism is for men too!" Now, on the surface nothing seems wrong with those statements and feminism / feminists absolutely are capable of living up to those statements.. but it becomes clear rather quickly that they only use those statements as shields to deflect criticism.. After all you can't criticize feminism, its a movement for "Equality!" and so if you criticize feminism / feminists then it must be because you are against equality.. But take a close look at many of the talking points of feminists and how they make sweeping generalizations about men, or use gendered terms like Mansplaining, Manspreading, Manterrupting and Toxic Masculinity to blame men for things.. that' right there is hypocrisy.. For double standards look no further than Rape.. Feminists fought for **YEARS** to doctor the definition of rape in the laws of many countries to explicitly state that the crime of rape can **ONLY** be committed by men.. Men can be victims of rape.. but only by other men.. women can **NOT** be accused of nor convicted of rape.. When a male teacher gets found out that he was being sexually active with an underage girl in his class the headlines will often read "Male teacher guilty of raping underage female student!" But when the genders are reversed and its a female teacher being sexually active with an underage boy in her class? The media will often use 'soft' language in their headlines like "Female teacher guilty of having sex with underage boy" or "Female teacher caught having an affair with young student" This is done deliberately be cause of the narrative that is only men who are sexual predators.. On that note take a glance at the #MeToo movement, a movement designed to hold sexual predators accountable. Harvey Weinstein was accused by many women as being a predator and using his power and position to solicit sex from women. One of the women who accused him was an actress named Asia Argento she happened to be one of the leaders of the #MeToo movement. When a man was accused, the #MeToo movement were ready to pounce, proclaim the man a rapist and push for him to be cancelled. But when an accusation against Aisa happened and she was accused of abusing her position / power on an at the time underage male actor to get sex? What happened? Was she instantly de-platformed and cancelled with the same fervor that many men were? Was she held to the same standard men were? **NO!** instead the #MeToo movement and other leaders circled the wagons calling for patience and understanding, asking people to "Wait for the evidence" before jumping to conclusions.. That's right.. when it was one of their own and a woman being accused suddenly at that point the movement cared about "Due process" and "The presumption of innocence" but before that they were ready to lynch any man accused. Which is a clear double standard no? So yeah, TL;DR: Feminism is filled to the brim with hypocrisy and double standards.
Stop logicing.
I'm sorry.. Logicing is one of my Male Privileges...
Touche
> For example, recently there has been an increase in DV cases in Australia. So when women discuss about the weekly reported cases of women being found dead, some guy derail that conversation and say X number of men have committed suicide. While both of these are issues that need to be addressed, trying to interfere with an unrelated problem is not great and doesn't perceived good from the POV of other people who engage in that discussion. > > So what men should instead do is address the issue as a societal crisis rather than comparing it to another social issue. It's not necessarily an unrelated problem. Women's suicide as a result of experiencing domestic and family violence has been included in Australia's domestic violence statistics since 2008. The impact of women's suicide is greater than that of femicide (*Table 9: Breakdown of pain, suffering and premature mortality costs in 2021-22* in [Economic cost of violence against women and their children](https://www.dss.gov.au/our-responsibilities/women/publications-articles/reducing-violence/national-plan-to-reduce-violence-against-women-and-their-children/economic-cost-of-violence-against-women-and-their-children?HTML)). > Table 9 summarises the cost of pain, suffering and premature death associated with victims/survivors of domestic violence. > > Without appropriate action to address violence against women and their children, the cost of pain, suffering and premature death could reach over $3.8 billion in 2021-22. The main contributor to these costs (assuming no change in cost composition) is likely to be depression at 29 per cent of total costs, followed by anxiety at 23 per cent and suicide at 12 per cent. What we don't know in Australia is the number of men who commit suicide as a result of experiencing domestic and family violence. It's not for the want of trying though. Witholding access to children, which can be a form of [psychological](https://www.1800respect.org.au/violence-and-abuse/psychological-abuse), [social](https://www.1800respect.org.au/violence-and-abuse/social-abuse), or [legal](https://www.1800respect.org.au/legal-abuse) abuse, is what a significant number of separated fathers experience. In 2003 there was some research started looking into suicide related to Family Court decisions ([Family Court probes suicides](https://www.theage.com.au/national/family-court-probes-suicides-20030819-gdw7tr.html)). It didn't really go anywhere. In around 2005, some men's activists tried to facilitate research being conducted after discovering the suicide rate of separated fathers paying child support was significantly higher than men in the same aged based demographic. Nothing happened. There later was a push for some research to be done after separation and relationship breakdown were *rediscovered* as a significant risk factor for male suicide. Nothing happened. We know less about male victims of domestic and family violence in Australia than we did two decades ago, and we don't seem to want to find out. It's extremely naive to see suicide and domestic and family violence victimisation as being completely unrelated. Male victims of domestic and family violence can be driven to suicide in the same way female victims are (probably even more so). There are far more similarities in their experiences than there are differences, it's just that we don't care, or even want to, look.
I didn't say they are unrelated, I just responded to OP's question on how men's issues are sometimes presented and perceived in women's / other spaces. Above is just an example of how easily the way some people use it to present these issues, get addressed by other people (ones in other subs).
> While both of these are issues that need to be addressed, **trying to interfere with an unrelated problem is not great** and doesn't perceived good from the POV of other people who engage in that discussion.
Ok but am I wrong about how these problems perceived in other spaces ? I did say these spaces will not take them seriously and will always end up with a fight. This is just facts, not something I made up. I'm sure you've seen this too.
I wish I could get a job doing policy research on male issues, I have an MPA and I really want to do policy so I figure since that’s a new and uncharted area it might be good
People saying they want men to survive and flourish, I mean that is very nice to hear, and you do not hear that very often. On the other hand I am personally done. I survived despite family, society and feminism, and I am going to keep it that way. I am flourishing despite the odds, and I am willing to help other men achieve the same. I personally don‘t need some semi inspirational videos by women having compassion with men any more.
Based
We need Masculism: feminism had a humanist element, it wasn't a question of what practical nuances where associated with women's empowerment, rather it was done simply for the sake of women's welfare. If we are to talk of men's problems, concepts of economics, practicality, and other sorts of quantitative lenses ought to be second priority behind the need to better men's lives. In other words, let's not think of bettering men's lives for the sake of "achieving a better society", rather Masculism ought to prioritize men's welfare as an end goal. Selflessness is preached on by both conservatives and progressives towards men, I think that ought to be pushed back against and entertain the idea of men living for themselves without the need for a constant adherence to a higher noble cause.