As a society, we need to come to terms with masculinity. That means men need to be able to be masculine without being domineering and without being castigated.
But the thing is, those activities are what allow us to be vulnerable and what allow us to bond with others. The more you suppress those urges, the more you end up feeling alone. And loneliness is perhaps the most understandable cause of suicide I can think of.
We need to stop sending this message to young boys. It's okay to express your feelings. It's okay to be vulnerable. You don't have to simply grit your teeth and toughen up to endure whatever is bothering you.
I do not have children. I would not have a clue how to raise a girl, but if I had a boy, I would be teaching him stoical techniques to dealing with problems, not today's 'share your feelings' approach.
(I am not in anyway telling you how to raise your children, just sharing my opinion as a man.)
I just don't see any evidence that the West's in vogue approach to teaching boys and young men to be "in touch with their feelings" is helping them in anyway. They are not happier. They are not more successful (in life). They are depressed.
The stoics taught that most of what we think are problems, are not in fact problems. And the things that are problems are generally not in our capacity to change and therefore probably not worth worrying about.
Society tells us that every little thing is worth being upset about. We are conditioned to even be outraged on other people's behalf over what really amounts to nothing (think every single twitter shitstorm ever). We are told to pick at scabs until they are bleeding, then pick some more. The theory being that if we pick deep enough we will end up in a state of emotional healing/enlightenment and we will feeling better for it. I don't buy it.
In comparison, masculine silence of the "strong silent" form, which occurs frequently in my family, and even myself, acts to reinforce existing privileges - it leads to excessive maintenance of a self-assured, unflappable image, not betraying weakness or answering to anyone, even when you need to ask questions, share responsibility for a problem, or should collaborate and submit to a group policy on behavior. It's ultimately built on the kind of anxiety over one's role described in the article, and it's a major penalty to healthy communication within the family, because it creates a stagnant bubble of "shall-not-be-challenged" behavior and outlook.
I'm actively working to disentangle the two within my own life. I've had the listening part down pretty well for a while. I had to learn when my responses were turning into image-asserting judgments, explanations that were unasked for, and other communication-blockers. I still have some trouble asking for things. I still have plenty to learn about when to become more engaged and active.
All of those things you mention are of the former, not the latter category.
One can be stoic and unconcerned with the problems the world throws at you but still connect to people on an emotional level. This is something older generations of my extended family absolutely failed at, due mostly to old-fashioned englishness, and now the younger generations feel few emotional bonds between ourselves and have basically dispersed.
It's OK to be a tough man who can take it on the chin, and also to admit you love your friends and family.
Stoicism has nothing to do with being unable to express love/affection?
Many times in my life people around me have pressured me to express how I feel about some recent event. I often resist this for a number of reasons. I might consider my feelings towards the matter to be deeply personal and private. I may realize that my feelings toward the matter will, if vocalized, cause distress to others. I may not have strong feelings at all, and expressing that may cause distress to others. Sometimes I just have nothing at all to say, and my insistence that I have no thoughts on the matter is taken as me being resistant to share what I think.
Summer camps when I was a teenager, the deaths of distant relatives, and the suicides of classmates that I did not know well are common places to the later examples.
The problem is that, honestly, a lot of these feelings are messy. They aren't expressions of weakness, they aren't some magical key used to unlock progress, they're not even something that's easily sympathized with.
They can be the white-hot anger of being pulled off a project or ignored for the nth time in class or being made fun of. They can be the bubbling cold black rage of being forced to work on something only to have it stunted at every turn by bad management or being shunned by members of the preferred gender for whatever reason. They can be the bright flash of joy and uncontainable exuberance of having pulled off the impossible on deadline or winning a hard contest.
The point is, in all those cases, boys and men who express their feelings honestly and openly are considered creeps, weirdos, crazy, or unprofessional.
So, no, the problem isn't that they keep these feelings bottled up--it's instead that, when they're honest and open in their passion, people become uncomfortable and afraid or inconvenienced. We celebrate the passionate man, in the abstract, but you bet your ass it's never made things better in the day-to-day.
In fact, we tend to double-down on this nonsense, and so punish the behaviors (sparring, yelling, cursing, whatever) that would formerly be used to defuse the feelings in young folks until they realize such things are counterproductive, and bait-n-switch them.
The social limits on expression aren't even based on a laughably bad interpretation of "heathy" expression. It straight up means to continue conforming like you always have, but additionally cry and show emotional weakness when socially cued to do so.
Nope, just agreeing with angersock without wearing my misanthropy on my sleeve.
For me, controlling my emotions brings a sense of inner calm -- happiness. There is nothing better than thinking with a clear head, without being dogged by feelings of anger, anxiety, jealousy, fear or sadness.
For whatever reason, be it psychological or physiological, it is clear that humans cannot maintain a perpetual high. The serotonin is expended, the stimulant wears off, unhealthy dependencies on emotional states are created. An even keel is worth any number of highs in my opinion. The goal should not be an emotion or a high-water mark, but rather to make progress. Progress is tangible, you can hang your hat on it and be proud of it, and most importantly it's available to you no matter how poor your circumstances or station in life are.
I don't enjoy wild swings of emotion and the loss of control that often accompanies; so level-headed and clear thinking are better for me.
I've thought about this a lot, and I'm afraid its not that simple. In competitive, male societies where a certain bluntness is socially accepted, you cannot unilaterally change the rules. You'll be a welcome victim to the schoolyard bullies. You'll be setting up your son for psychological damage.
Having friends, doing sports, enjoying nature, taking care of your appearance etc. are probably more effective in balancing a boy's psychology.
If you don't have a cute girl's pretty face, nobody will white-knight on your behalf or care about your feelings - instead, people will be embarrassed.
My statement seems controversial, and was at one point even downvoted below zero. I'd be interested to hear the counter-arguments, but alas, the HN downvote-to-disagree anti-pattern is in full effect, so I'll never know.
I said what I said because it reflects the experiences that I've made. Of all the people I can think of, including me, those that got tougher and worked hard on improving themselves, changed their lives for the better. If there is another way, I haven't seen it yet.
In the end, you can only adapt to the society you live in, or must choose to live elsewhere. Becoming an outsider or moving to the woods is an adaption, too. There is a wide range of norms and cultures worldwide, and those with a very masculine culture (e.g. Japan) are often economically successful, but can be harsh on men due to the competitive pressure.
Additionally, the specific emotions being expressed matter a lot. I would lose a lot more respect for a man if I saw him crying inappropriately in a business situation (assuming the situation didn't warrant it) as opposed to if I saw him get angry and shout inappropriately.
Every decision is wrong, but it's your job as the one who has their shit together in the shit-storm to choose the least fucked up choice.
source: personal experience. all of my male friends and I bond through good natured ribbing of eachother. all of my female friends and I bond through shared good emotional experiences.
We don't send these messages to boys. The messages we send is that they should be ashamed just for being boys, and atone for the sins (actual and perceived) of their fathers by being subservient and expecting to be shot down when they try to assert themselves.
These parties would rather men kill themselves over their identity crisis than those men rediscovering true masculinity - because they're afraid of the bad part. It's just the nature of things, Masculinity and Femininity both their good and bad parts, but we only shun one.
I'd say the problem with male suicides probably exists for longer than 20 years. Patriarchy has existed for a long time, and together with it its accompanying set of high expectations of men. Pressures to be strong, successful, never show emotion or weakness, to serve your family,.. there is nothing new there. It used to come with much more rewards, but feminism has eroded that away. So now we are kinda equal, while the old cultural norms still survive, causing pain to men.
Patriarchy is the common enemy.
I presume you were trying to make a point that this may be a "core" biological difference, which will always lead to a difference in suicide statistics between men and women. You may be right, you may be wrong, but it is in any case too early, maybe even defeatist to talk about that now. I believe it is high time for a male revolt against patriarchy, and that it might, even if you are right, at least reduce this problem.
After hundreds of thousands of years of existance of humans you think it is too early to talk about that? I consider that ridiculous. You can not simply escape reality by crying "reductionism".
Of course it is a statement of averages. Not every woman is fine, things can get in the way. But on average, woman will be considered to be valuable to society no matter what.
I meant, given that we are right now facing this problem of high suicide rates among men, it is definitely too early and too defeatist to ascribe it to biological differences. (If that is what you were trying to say. As I already said, I'm not sure if I understood correctly what you were trying to say.) We have to look at our culture and at ways in which we can change this. Maybe in the end we won't make the problem go away completely, but we must try. That is what I meant.
Yes, I frequently read articles in the press about women on welfare with large families, and how amazing they are for having children, and how privileged we all are to contribute to their upkeep!
I am not defined by my use to society. I live my life for me and the people I love, my place is what I make it, not what 'society' decides to offer me.
And I am pretty sure that you depend on society (the people around you) a lot. You sound as if you look down on welfare moms. How would your friends like you as a welfare mom - would they still be your friends? How would you feel?
Which gender legally gets the kids, house and alimony in +90% of divorces?
I am not negating that there are prejudice against men. I simply wish to point out the obvious - these prejudice are a product of patriarchy.
It was not feminism that painted the picture of the man as incompetent parent. It is a very old tenet of patriarchy, that mothers are better parents. That men go around drinking, fighting, they are too aggressive, too incompetent at small housework... These things are really old. They are patriarchy.
Is this the argument to make, though?
It forces the assertion that "if not for patriarchy, these prejudices wouldn't exist."
I'm not sure that that logically follows.
> It was not feminism that painted the picture of the man as incompetent parent. It is a very old tenet of patriarchy, that mothers are better parents. That men go around drinking, fighting, they are too aggressive, too incompetent at small housework... These things are really old. They are patriarchy.
You're certain this paragraph is true? Patriarchy holds a male at the head of the organizational unit under the belief that that person will do a better job managing that organization. This doesn't lead to "he's the head of the house but a useless parent." I'm fairly certain that that is a modern invention for comedy.
Implications cannot be automatically reversed, as anyone visiting this site should know ;) I.e. "Patriarchy => prejudice X" does not automatically imply "!Patriarchy => !prejudice X".
As for your explanation on patriarchy, it is simplistic. Probably all ideological systems that humans have ever followed have been rich with mythology, symbolism, and various ideals. Patriarchy, like any other human system of thought, is not merely such a cold, pseudo-rational conclusion. There are always ideals that come with a system, most importantly, in this case, the concept of the ideal man and woman.
Basically, ask yourself, why was it thought that men would better "manage the organization"? What characteristics were idealized in men to make them fit this role? What is the ideal "man of the family"?
> I am not negating that there are prejudice against men. I simply wish to point out the obvious - these prejudice are a product of patriarchy.
The context of this statement implies the removal of patriarchy will affect these prejudices, and, as it makes no sense to argue for the removal of patriarchy if the effect would be negative (!patriarchy => n * (prejudice X) where n > 1), and since the assertion establishes a correlation between the two (n cannot be 1), we're led to assume you mean !patriarchy => n * (prejudice X) where n < 1.
Patriarchy doesn't traditionally espouse the tenant of a useless father figure in the household. The distilled archetype being discussed is a modern comedy trope born of gender exploration from the last 40 years.
I made an observation given keying words and phrases you used. I've no doubt your description came from an honestly held belief. Describing the ideal male in a patriarchal society to find raising a family or keeping a household to be menial and beneath him, indicates a viewpoint based on disrespecting women and considering them less, rather than an illogical division of family and social duties based on physical gender differences.
Your umbrage is misplaced.
I already answered this - all systems come with ideals, myths, additional narratives that serve to explain why things are the way they are. And so patriarchy comes with the concept of the ideal man and woman. This is not something I invented.
Patriarchy is not merely a value-neutral division of labor, or whatever your cold impersonal description was meant to convey. A key component is placing greater value on men, and hence bestowing them with various privileges, but also obligations, expectations.
Finally, even if patriarchy did not insist on male incompetence in the house, the very fact that men never do housework, and are not even allowed to do it unless they want to belittle themselves before others, means that it is very easy to imagine a Real Man (TM) stumbling around during babysitting.
No. E.g. The aggressively anti-male prejudice baked into domestic violence law is entirely the work of feminists.
There are many other similar prejudices now. So it's simply dishonest to pretend that feminism has had no influence on family law, education, or many other areas where boys and men are struggling.
Ou don't think it has anything to do with the vast numbers of women killed by men? Very few men are murdered by their wives.
While domestic abuse from women against men is important please don't make the mistake of saying the levels of severity of violence is the same.
The parent wasn't. S/he said:
> The aggressively anti-male prejudice baked into domestic violence law is entirely the work of feminists
which is true regardless of the statistics; under the US rules (AFAIK), police must arrest someone as a result of a domestic violence call, and the guidance is that they must arrest the "primary aggressor", the person who is bigger, stronger, etc. - deemed more dangerous (i.e. the man), regardless of who's actually being violent.
Even if men were attacking women in 90% of the cases, arresting men in 99% of the cases is sexist anti-male prejudice.
There's several errors in this:
(1) There aren't really one set of "US rules" on this level of specificity for domestic violence calls,
(2) Under the Constitution, arrests without probable cause are forbidden, and the mere fact of a call will not always support probable cause, so insofar as there are "US rules", they prohibit the form of "must arrest" rules described,
(3) Where rules do require arrest of the primary aggressor in cases of mutual combat in domestic violence, the rules for determining who the "primary aggressor" is generally do not consider "who is bigger, stronger, etc.", but instead consider the actual injuries that have been inflicted in the particular case, past history of domestic violence of domestic violence complaints, and whether one party's violence was in self defense or defence of others. A few also include consideration of the potential future injuries as well as those other factors, which is the closest thing to the "deemed more dangerous" standard you propose that might way against men. 
None allow arrests of one party regardless of who is actually being violent, as you claim.
 a state-by-state breakdown of relevant statutes is at http://www.bwjp.org/files/bwjp/articles/Primary_Aggressor_Ch...
Weapons in untrained hands do generally less damage than fists, so men in general cause more damage in fights. However, if the weapon do cause damage, that damage has a higher risk of being major.
So which one is more server, a untrained knife wielding attacker or someone going for you with their fists. The legal system has one view, the statistics has one.
The disconnect, IMO, stems from the fact that women are fighting, and men are not. Or, perhaps better said, men are just beginning to frame an opposition. Women have stood up, organized, and brought attention to their problems (which were, without any doubt, seriously greater than men's), and achieved many victories. Standard democratic process. Now it's high time for men to do the same. However, if male action gets reduced to just attacking feminism and blaming feminism for everything, that sucks. It is one system, patriarchy, that causes all these problems. If some women and feminists are blind to the problems of men, is that really a surprise? Fully understanding someone else, someone whose shoes you haven't walked in, is incredibly hard. What we need is discussion, finding understanding, and fighting the common source of all these problems - patriarchy. And nobody can stand for men, but men themselves.
Yes, honestly, though perhaps it shouldn't. The point of feminism was to bring equality to the sexes. In places where it has been successful, to see it continue to push forward as a way of achieving victories for women causes spite and backlash. I have low hopes for a real men's version of feminism to form, for exactly the reasons laid out in this article. The main problem (as this article points out) is that any man who admits to difficulties or problems is seen as not-a-man. The current state of MRA might be sad, but they are generally despised first and foremost because men who complain are not respectable men. Perhaps its just a pipe dream, but one would hope that feminists would remember that the original goal was equality for both sexes, and would help us out where needed.
But for me, the problem with MRAs is not that they are "unmanly". They remind me of something like a slave, who sees another former slave now walking free, and instead of now demanding his own freedom, he fights for the other guy to become a slave again...
You are probably right, MRAs probably will be seen as pussies and belittled, but their response, IMO, should be to embrace it. Yes, I am a pussy. If that's what an intelligent, reflective man is, then let it be - I am a pussy. Kind of like the relationship between feminists and the word "bitch". And that is for some men one hard pill to swallow.
Now that feminism has won a lot of victories, men are in a position that they are still burdened by patriarchic expectations, but no longer enjoy the corresponding privileges. The right answer is to fight the expectations, IMO.
I simply do not see this happening. Before people ever do this, they will attempt to accomplish their goals by easier, more acceptable, less self-socially destroying means, like wrapping their complaints in traditional/religious roles or (likely reactionary) ideology. But I don't want to detract from this any longer. The point I was trying to make was far more succinctly put by marrs in anther reply to you.
The whole patriarchy critique is a biased philosophical position of a particular social movement. If you guys like it, fine, but you don't get to force it upon others.
Feminism has gone so far as to brand the men's rights movement a hate group, they've gone out of their way to characterize men's rights books as rape-apologizing hate speech, and in some cases have actively shut down talks given from what is basically the MRA viewpoint.
This is clearly coercion so I feel justified in saying feminism is attempting to "force" the men's rights movement to develop in a certain way.
Am I saying you're personally trying to force me to do anything right now? That wasn't my intention. As for your view that we should all get together and blame the patriarchy, allow me to rephrase myself for clarity: thanks, but no thanks.
 - http://metronews.ca/news/ottawa/1000093/protesters-shut-down...
 - http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/robyn-urback-move-...
I cannot really speak for others, I represent no one but myself. I can only guess that, to some extent, such reaction from some feminists is simply defence. The MRA narrative is too focused on feminism, and has too much relativizing, "who's the greater victim" talk, which is stupid.
But I also definitely agree that some of the reaction is just a lack of will to hear what the other side has to say, which sucks.
BTW, what do you then blame?
It's impossibile to stand up for masculinity as being a natural and good thing without butting heads with THE group who says masculinity is an overvalued social construct that needs to be destroyed.
On victimhood, it's completely childish for a movement to spend 50 years talking about how victimized its members are and the moment somebody else starts using the same tactic it's "let's not talk about victimhood, it's sooo stupid!" It's a classic "learned it from watching you" scenario.
On who I blame, I don't have a group that I blame for everything. We live in a difficult world where survival is a challenge, there will always be things that are nobody's fault. People who have a default boogeyman use them in times of uncertainty: "the gays caused the earthquake", "the patriarchy caused me to miss that promotion", "I drink because of my ex-wife", etc.
But do I blame feminism for the things it's responsible for? You bet.
edit: I don't mind donwvotes, but I do take notice when something is downvoted in less time than it would take to read and reflect on the comment.
Second, I did not say that pointing out problems men face is stupid, far from it. What I said was that comparing is stupid. "Who's the bigger victim" is stupid talk. Negating the problems women face, as if this were a competition, some kind of zero-sum game, is stupid. Try some of that charitable reading you recommended yourself.
Victimhood is almost always relative and I've spent my entire life hearing about how society victimizes females as compared to males, you can't just rewrite the history of the movement when it's convenient.
In fact if you listen to them these evil MRAs are saying the exact same thing you are right now, that all the victim playing of feminism is disrupting any societal discussion of men's problems. The day feminism stops caricaturizing men in order to talk about female victimhood is the day you get to complain about MRAs entering the conversation. If you think feminism doesn't misrepresent men then you're part of the problem being fought against.
And when I suggested you read comments more charitably it's because I thought you weren't and it was causing you to miss the point. It wasn't just to hurt your feelings, this isn't reddit.
Maybe that's what you heard from it, but it's not the position of feminism that, e.g., rape is bad merely because women get raped more than men. Rape is bad, period. The point is that the problem affects women disproportionately more, and in the past men could get away with it without any punishment. So, women need, and have fought for, extra protection. And of course, for the general dismantling of the power imbalance between men and women. Why some men immediately internalize this, and feel like someone just called all men rapists and woman haters is really beyond me.
In any case, we will probably have to agree to disagree. In my experience, MRA is not really about anything else than feminism. There are some who actually care about the specific injustices faced by men, and some who have endured them directly (and you may be shocked but I am a feminist and still support them...). But the MRA movement is really just using these things as tools in a fight purely against feminism. Because, it's always feminism. Nothing else can be at fault but feminism. Every male problem is either caused by feminists, or feminists are indirectly to blame because they didn't fix it already (?!). Because, yeah, fuck all the rapes, domestic violence and shit, the most important thing all feminists have to care about when fighting these injustices is - men, of course! :D
A lot of feminists probably go to far, and dismiss valid concerns too easily, but to take that as a reason to focus on feminism, and to constantly negate the whole of feminism makes it clear that the MRA movement, for the most part, is just anti-feminism and nothing more. That the problems men face are being used as a fig leaf to cover up simple misogyny.
Specific (i.e., with citations to the actual law) examples of this alleged anti-male prejudice are called for in support of this claim.
No, but it is the reason that this is the modern trope men are reduced to in modern media. Matt Groening has gone on the record saying that the reason he created Homer and Bart as incompetent / lovable / stupid / trouble makers, and Lisa / Marge as competent, intelligent role models, is because at the time the series was coming out he felt that was a good way to avoid getting negative publicity for his new series from various feminist groups around the country. No one was going to protest a stupid male role model, or a trouble making male kid, but making the women the same way might, and making them the positive characters would win his show support from feminist groups. Most modern sitcoms follow this same format for the same reason.
Anyway, feminists fight for women. They are mostly women. They had a serious bunch of wrongs to right, more than just some unfavorable sitcom tropes. If they were not, during this fight, sufficiently sensitized to the problems of men, can you really blame them? Do you even realize how unjust and hypocritical such a judgement is? Had feminism followed such standards, it would have never achieved anything, and women would to this day be unable to vote, own property, etc etc.
Men would do well to stand up for themselves in these matters, and not allow themselves to find scapegoats in feminism.
Anyway, feminists fight for women.
The idea that we achieve this by having women fight for women's rights and men fight for men's rights is absurd. It might have been inevitable to begin with, but we're not living in the 60s any more, and if we don't move away from this adversarial position then of course people will start to feel threatened, retreat to fundamentalist positions, and react in the way you object to.
No, it is the essence of democracy. I cannot go around preaching, protesting, speaking in the name of other people. Everyone must stand up for themselves first, and then, if their cause is just and recognized as such by society, wide support will follow. Waiting for other people to represent you better is completely ridiculous.
> ...this adversarial position...
You seem to be implying that if people stand up for themselves, they must automatically be opponents. This is not true.
I would argue that the way your sex is stereotypically portrayed in society at large _is_ serious.
Since no one can explain what "patriarchy" even is in a concrete way, this is very far from obvious.
From usage, it seems to mean "a powerful and sinister force that oppresses women".
A uesless hypothesis that isn't testable.
Women treated worse? Patriarchy.
Men treated worse? Patriarchy.
Consider that if you go back far enough, men were considered the better parent. I'm sure Patriarchy is to blame for that even though it was to blame for men being considered the worse parent as well.
Personally I suspect that women being allowed to be the primary caregiver is actually a privilege they earn because their investment in having the children is so much higher. Feminism needs you to believe that being a stay-at-home mum is a horrible ordeal and a hallmark of oppression. The opposite is probably true, if you consider the average job. There may be jobs that are more fun than taking care of your own children, but most jobs aren't like that.
Consider a stay-at-home dad. He would be a very expensive babysitter (half of the mother's income). Why should women accept that?
Btw., I've heard that in custody trials men actually tend to come out quite well. But I think it has to be taken into consideration that fathers probably only go to court when they see a chance to win to begin with (mother is a crack whore or whatever). So that statistic alone is not telling much.
You live in an age of abundance now, but 50 or so years ago you might be singing a different tune, and you can't reprogram society overnight without causing serious harm.
As for "reprogramming society" - that's just spreading FUD. Society is not a piece of stone, it changes constantly. And far from it that any of these changes happen simply overnight.
And to simply assume that patriarchy is the direct cause of our society's abundance today, well... to say the least, you may need to provide some proof :D
I don't mean to put words into your mouth but that is how your statements read to me.
OK, having read more of this discussion, I don't think that's what you're saying. But what do you mean by patriarchy? What do you mean by its crimes?
I don't know if I can give you a quality definition of patriarchy, I am sure you can google that yourself, if you are actually interested. If you just want me to make some silly semantic mistake and then bicker about it, then this will get boring soon...
I would say in short that patriarchy is a form of societal organization where men dominate. As the bloody word says itself already.
Generally, your approach is smart, but topics like this have to stir up emotion. I believe it is completely impossible to have a meaningful discussion about such topics, which affect people's lives, without getting emotional. I guess only people who are completely unaffected by the problem at hand can have the luxury of objective distance...
It's really no different from how people assume the fem- in feminism means it's all about putting women ahead of men. I avoid calling myself feminist for the same reason I don't generally use the word patriarchy. Avoiding confusing terms in early conversations is a simple matter of effective communication.
1. All the hyper-intelligent characters that are part of the main recurring cast are male (BBT has a 4:2 gender ratio in the characters portrayed as unusually intelligent),
2. The one female character that is part of the team with those characters is a female who is explicitly part of the team to, as described upthread, "lubricate their social interactions." (BBT has a range of social ineptitude among the intelligent characters, including one of the intelligent female characters as particularly socially inept.)
3. Is, rather than a deliberately and overtly ridiculous sitcom, a drama billed as reality-based.
Firstly, blackface used white actors painted black, unnecessarily. Comedy cannot use real nerds, because real nerds cannot act. Non-nerds depiciting nerd characters are used for the same reason that, in acting, non-surgeons portray surgeons, non-pilots portray pilots and non-US-presidents portray US presidents. Blackface is offensive even when the actual portrayal the black characters is balanced, simply because of the discrimination against black actors which prevent them from getting the roles.
The nerd stereotypes in BBT are not single-faceted, and they are not offensive to nerds. In fact, nerds love BBT. Most of the characters on BBT are "real" in the sense that people can relate to them.
Something that might satisfy a reasonable definition of "nerd blackface", if there is one, might be, say, The Revenge of the Nerds (1984).
Big Bang Theory, kind of (its a sitcom, all the male main characters are intellectually "smart", and the not-smart main character is female, though there are also two "smart" female characters, as well.)
The only exceptions seem to be Bangladesh and China.
This indicates that, whilst it would be nice to have a simple one-size fits all reason for male suicides pretty much globally being higher than female, the picture is somewhat more complex than "We have been demonizing all things male".
The ability to hold up traits common to those that are in power as a source of derision seems to have a cathartic function in both the recipient(s) and the sender(s).
I don't understand.
And so on.
I wish we look at problems without the gender/race/nationality etc lens and only purely based on their merit. This is 2015 and we still have gender stereotypes, whole lot of double standards (for both genders), laws favoring one gender or the other etc. All this noise is just tiring.
Because MRA has an absolutely horrific public image. If they concentrated on topics like visitation rights in divorce they'd be well appreciated - Fathers 4 Justice is/was an organsiation that does exactly that and received positive coverage back in the mid-2000s (sadly, according to Wikipedia they've since gotten worse)
By contrast, almost every MRA conversation I've ever seen has been talking about how awful Feminists are. Using "Social justice warrior" to cover anyone who is passionate about helping women do anything (and why is it a negative label anyway?). About fake rape accusations as if they cast doubt over every legitimate accusation ever made. About how scantily clad women are 'asking for it'.
Is it really any wonder MRA isn't "cool"? (and let's be honest - Feminism isn't exactly universally cool anyway)
Imagine this "witty banter" about female mutilation.
"I now no longer present my satirical works without making it clear that they are not serious, as many people have been unable to recognize that fact on their own, despite the over-the-top and theatrical style of said presentations."
The extreme voices of feminism are pretty awful, but AFAICT the entire MRA movement is made up of arseholes.
It doesn't have to be, and there are issues to be addressed. It's just a shame it seems to be addressed by misogynist dickholes.
We have managed to figure out how to land on the moon and yet we can't figure out how to weigh certain issues on their merit, and merit only.
It's just language....
To put it another way - it's easy to see that a mens rights movement could exist that actually pushes for mens rights. All we seem to have now is a group of reactionaries that like to rant about the evils of women and feminism, and espouse some (IMHO) horrific views about women and their place in the world. They also see mens rights as a fight against feminism in a sort of tug-of-war where no fight needs to exists - gender roles and inequalities could be fought together.
I think calling them misogynist dickholes just about covered it though, because that is the way they generally come across.
I have no problem with the "actual issue" of discussing ways in which men are treated unfairly by society. I have a huge problem with the people who have taken it upon themselves to stand up and be called "mens rights activists" and then proceed to rail against women's rights and women's rights activists as if they are the enemy.
That's cultural hegemony at work, folks.
People frequently do!
The difference is that they don't make up the whole of that movement.
HackerNews search results:
* "Misandry": 2
* "Misandrist": 0
* "Misogyny": 59
* "Misogynist": 23
Most people will have to look up "the opposite of misogyny" to find "misandry", and that's telling in itself. I do understand why this happens (misogyny has always been a culturally-recognized problem with real repercussions, the opposite not so much), but it still happens and it does unbalance the cultural perception of things.
I'm pretty sure that this statement makes you a misandrist. FYI, MRM does not include actually PUA and MGTOW. Different goals.
You'd be wrong then.
Misandry would be the hating or disparaging of men as a group, not the hating or disparaging of the MRA movement as it exists right now.
As a man, I do not identify with MRA and neither am I offended if someone criticises them, it is not misandry to do so. As I said - I can see that there could be a mens rights movement that addressed mens issues without resorting to being misogynist and anti-feminist. I do not think this exists in the MRA sphere at present. I do not think feminism (in its more mainstream forms) is the enemy, either, in fact it should be a natural ally.
I'll concede that a lot of outspoken feminists often try to intentionally confuse this issue as well, painting anyone who disagrees with any facet of feminism, no matter how extreme, as being misogynist.
Have you heard what feminists say about legal parental surrender, military draft, circumcision, false accusations etc? Dodging the issue, invoking "it's patriarchy", FGM straw man and so on. With variations of "XYZ can't be fixed because its biology" or "add more feminism".
You are right on one thing. Traditionalist women are actually much worse than feminists when it comes to MR. Unfortunately feminists cater to this particular "electorate" and because of that feminists are not allies of MRM (outside of /r/FeMRADebates).
No, I'm not, in fact I'm explicitly and deliberately not doing that, as I said here -
"I'll concede that a lot of outspoken feminists often try to intentionally confuse this issue as well, painting anyone who disagrees with any facet of feminism, no matter how extreme, as being misogynist."
>> Feminism can't be natural ally of mens' rights because it is actively pushing against it.
In fact I disagree entirely, there's no reason at all that a mens rights movement could not exist to push the issues you call out, and work alongside a feminist movement working on feminist issues. Women campaigning for greater access to the workplace, and against street harassment, are not in opposition to men wanting greater access to their children. This is what I mean by natural allies.
The idea that they are necessarily in opposition is childish.
> Women campaigning for greater access to the workplace, and against street harassment, are not in opposition to men wanting greater access to their children. This is what I mean by natural allies.
In theory. But in practice they are. Please read the link I provided.
I really hope that you are right and both movements can actually come and act together. Equal Rights Amendment was a beautiful thing, shame it died.
As for now we have rape-on-campus (not supported by statistical data) moral panic instead.
Fat chance, humans being what they are...
(Yeah, I'm a closet misanthrope!)
But everything else she said was extremely misandrist and sexist.
"Single men become a rare commodity later in life due to our unfortunate propensity for dying. If you can get to 50 the world seems to be nothing but women."
Without wanting to turn this into a race thing, there are sociological circumstances which sort of give us a glimpse (in subsets of the population) of what that could look like - and it's not pretty... See e.g. http://www.economist.com/node/21532296, which is one of the lesser emotionally charged discussions of it, but I'm sure you can find the right Google terms to find dozens of other articles about it yourself.
"More boys are born in Sweden, the average life expectancy of males has gone up and it's mostly men who move here from other countries."
"No one woman can provide the amount of sex a man physically needs for his mental health."
I could even go further and claim it to be an almost pan-mammalian truth.
Men and women are different. Especially when it comes to sex.
If you want more than one partner, go for it, become a polyamorist. Lots of men and women do.
But your generalisations and your attitude towards women are childish, you need to grow up.
Look at the testimony of transgender people who go on hormones, especially female-to-male people. There's so much anecdotal evidence suggesting that the male libido is out of control compared to the female one.
> If you want more than one partner, go for it, become a polyamorist. Lots of men and women do.
I think what he's referring to is competition. Since there are more women than men it's more likely for a man to find a mate as compared to a society where there are an equal amount of men and women (since it's more likely that a women he would be interested in is taken). Women end up getting the shit end of the stick, though.
> But your generalisations and your attitude towards women are childish, you need to grow up.
I mean, how would you even know? Because they aren't begging for it constantly? Really, I can tell you that that's more due to being polite and knowing in advance that the answer will be no.
+ I term I use in a much broader sense internally, since I don't know any better for word it. So I might let it out without checking if other people will understand what I'm saying.
= Not that they're entitled to it or anything, but then that never was my point.
I'm not trying to harp on you - I have also been guilty of this not too long ago. Your experience does not represent that of all men, and your mental model of what a woman is does not represent all women. You are literally generalizing two groups consisting of 3.5 billion people, the vast majority of which you will never even see in your entire life.
> but it's still a fact that men still aren't getting laid as much as they would ideally like to
I'm pretty sure you're internally replacing "men" with "me" here.
> I mean, how would you even know? Because they aren't begging for it constantly? Really, I can tell you that that's more due to being polite and knowing in advance that the answer will be no.
Again, you're speaking for yourself here.
If you can't be satisfied with sex with only one woman the you are free to lead a polyamorist lifestyle if you wish.
It's the generalisations across entire genders and the implied sexism that come across as childish. Not to mention your bizarre and horrific attitudes to rape. Do what you like, but women are people with varying tastes and drives just as much as men are. Maybe if you got to know a few you might find this out.
Do you take everyone so literally?
> horrific attitudes to rape.
... I'd roll my eyes, but I'm not American enough. What's being discussed is barely even rape at all, except in some broad, all-encompassing dictionary-style definition of the word. Something falling under the broadest possible definition of the word rape doesn't automatically mean that it's rape in the sense of a male assaulting and raping someone.
> women are people with varying tastes and drives just as much as men are.
Yes, and there's barely a person alive that doesn't know this; see point #1.
It's awful, you have a terrible attitude and a real lack of empathy.
I mean this - "Having sex with someone without their consent is rape, but that doesn't automatically mean it's a bad thing." - what the fuck? You clearly have no idea and I hope you're just young and stupid.
I'm sorry if I can't accept it as an axiom that all rape is equally bad...
Are you. seriously. saying. that just because something falls under the broadest and most pedantic definition of rape, that that means it must automatically be violent, bloody, sadistic?
If you fuck someone awake in the morning, that fits that very same definition of rape, therefore it _is_ rape, but it's obviously not a bad thing.
If one such counterexample exists I don't see why a few more shouldn't.
Are you even AWARE that I'm talking about the WOMAN initiating here?
also: the posts were shadow-deleted. also: I can't even comprehend how sensitive people are that they feel the need to delete that. it isn't even hate speech or anything, not that speech in itself is a bad thing or that people can't just ignore it when they see it.
the only thing I can see accomplished by such deletion would be people assuming the absolute worst, on the basis of information they don't have access to.
The formula is a charming yet incompetent male lead who's mainly driven by sex, paired with a strong, capable female lead who's always two steps ahead of him.
If I had children, I certainly wouldn't want them watching TV/movies that depict their gender as incapable or unintelligent. And that's equally true for girls and boys.
For example, switch around the person who embodies the bumbling figure and in most cases it would be frowned upon or not effective.
It's possibly a power thing. Maybe it's ok and fun (not right) to poke fun at those perceived with the most social power. In most other situations, it's like kicking someone when they're down. I didn't say I agreed with this, just that it might explain why it is more "acceptable" at the moment.
Above everything though, I do find this set up incredibly boring. It was funny the first couple of times but it's been done ad nauseum now. Ad agencies and comedy writers, please up your game.
As a 30-something guy the main issue I had with Avengers 2 (just to pick the latest mainstream action movie example) was the blatant product placement which had no logic (like driving an Audi convertible in the midst of a gunfight scene). Plus, there was too much talking, I almost felt asleep mid-way through the movie. I'm not a comic-books aficionado, so I didn't particularly care about any of the characters, I just wanted some good action.
Compare that with "Predator" or the "Rocky" or "Rambo" series. Lots of good action, lots of "this is damn cool!" feeling without much thinking or non-sense talking. And "Last Action Hero", the movie, was indeed genius, like its director, John McTiernan.
Beats headphones are overpriced, over-bassed crap with a gross form factor and uncomfortable cups to boot. This is said by anyone with any kind of taste for finer audio.
The John McClanes of this world, if in fact they exist at all, are exceptionally few and far between. Good competent fathers though? Those are hardly Hollywood inventions.
What Bruce Willis brings to the table is this idealized version of what "man" is supposed to mean. So, on the one hand, we have an image of men as socially retarded incompetents and on the other hand, we have an image of men as unkillable tough guys. Where is a 15 year old supposed to land in there?
1. I actually really enjoyed the first five or so seasons of BBT, before they started playing more and more to the cheap "socially retarded scientists" jokes. I also believe they aren't making lives better for intellectual young women, either, who need the role models more than anyone.
Of course, they have to be, it's a modern sitcom. The most attractive one is also only a waitress/failed aspiring actress.
Because when I've seen men get emascualated or mocked on TV, it's due to some jackassery on their part, and I don't feel the need to empathize. Isn't that true for you as well?
If there's an over-riding theme in media regarding men that I would report, it's that the consequences they experience are a result of their actions. I'd call that just as far from the truth, but an otherwise pleasant lie.
The funny thing was that they properly gendered all positive personae appearing in their publications. But they forgot about the negative appearances.
So it would be "the captain/ness is steering the ship into the harbour" but "the captain is leaving the sinking ship".
So check your bias next time you read a story. It's telling that you don't even notice all the negative portrayals of men anymore.
In most stories, the protagonist (male or female) is chosen because they're extraordinary. While I might identify a bit with Harry Potter or Luke Skywalker, they're certainly not going to be people I think of when I try to think of who I am because they're so fantastically extraordinary.
On the other hand, Bart Simpson or Fresh Prince Will Smith? Or, considering the age I'm approaching, Al Bundy? I can identify with them a lot more, even with the negative traits.
The other issue is:
> Arn't they typically courageous, or intelligent, or unyielding, or strong, or determined?
Why do you have to be courageous, intelligent, unyielding, strong, or determined? Why are all of those the absolute "good" traits?
If you're not a super strategist, are you a bad person? What if you avoid conflict? Afraid of dogs? etc.
The "standard" of extraordinary manhood is incredibly high if you look at stories like that.
The thing is these are all prime-time sitcoms and comedies.
There's just as many popular shows where this isn't the case. Dramas rarely have this sort of soft, incorrigible-but-loveable archetype.
I'm not super-current on my media, but Game of Thrones, Boardwalk Empire, Walking Dead, Mad Men... most everything on HBO, Showtime, AMC, and FX run with strong, deep, emotionally complex male characters who grow and discover themselves, alongside the female characters.
And the male characters in these dramas are, on the whole, much more identifiable and aspirational.
Those characters are aspirational? They're almost all murderers, thieves, adulterers, or worse. I wouldn't want my son to be anything like any of those characters.
Part of the problem with the antihero-as-role-model is that it also conveys that being interesting is important. And to be interesting, it's good (or at least OK) for a man to have significant character flaws. So many soon-to-be-men think having your crap together is boring and thus unattractive. And many women think falling for a flawed man and fixing him is a romantic notion.
Your son probably shouldn't be like any character on television, whether that's the antihero or bumbling means-well-but-worth-nothing comedy father. But
Interesting doesn't require character flaws. Those exist in characters in stories to provide space for developmental arcs -- space for us to see them grow and change, something we all want to do. They exist to make a point out of a story.
And these folks are so identifiable because we all sometimes feel like a not-put-together person. Heck, look how popular Breaking Bad, or House, M.D. were -- Laurie and Cranston were insanely popular in those roles because in their ridiculousness they reflected traits many people understand. Though I doubt their performances encouraged any meaningful percentage of the nation's fathers to start cooking meth, or medical professionals to treat people for lupus.
The story for a lot of these characters is that you can look like you have your shit together and still have space to learn, grow, evolve. Sure, it's in the context of murders and whatever because there's more drama there than "guy that goes to the office and has an ongoing feud with his HOA". But that doesn't invalidate the story, or directly encourage the audience to adopt the superficial story components.
That is a common motif. Is it easy being expected to be unyielding/strong/determined/etc? You have lower social value when you aren't adhering to this role. When you are adhering to this role you are making yourself disposable to a "higher cause". In other words making yourself cannon fodder or getting black lung in some coal mine.
You're doing the exact same thing you're complaining about. This is a social problem towards men, it is not a mans problem they need to solve for themselves.
The issue has nothing to do with masculinity and everything to do with the current crop of overly loud feminists. They won, and in doing so they left behind half the population. It's time for society to remember that other half.
This is exactly the problem. Instead of considering what it would take to solve the problem you point the finger at men for no other reason than they aren't women.
Compared to men, women:
* Live longer
* Are less likely to kill themselves
* Are less likely to be the victim of violence
* Are better protected under the law if they are victimized
* Are less likely to be homeless (and receive more support if they are)
* Receive shorter sentences for the same crimes
* Are less likely to be victims of police brutality (the disparity between men and women is actually greater than the disparity between blacks and whites!)
* Are protected under the law from genital mutilation
* Have reproductive rights
* Are more likely to go to college
* When applying for academic positions, are twice as likely to be selected over equally qualified men
* Are the majority of the electorate
* Receive preferential treatment in civil court
* The youngest generations now out-earns their male peers
* Are provided government loans, tax breaks, and contracts unavailable to men
* Are given better grades in school for the same answers
* Own the majority of wealth in the United States
Everything else being equal, men face far greater issues than their female peers.
You could also make a similar list of complaints about the "advantages that men have," which are obviously numerous. Everyone has it bad.
What's wrong with this community?
Its true that women are more likely to end up with custody, but that appears to because they are vastly more likely to seek custody.
Do they? Every study I have seen has never accounted for the differences in the average case where the man challenges vs. the average case where they do not. Perhaps they are discriminated against to the point that they only seek to challenge the status quo when they have a very good case, which is why they win more often when they do challenge.
This sentiment is part of the problem in my opinion. How shitty you have it isn't a damn competition. I think we should be working to remove these systemic issues for everyone, rather than keeping score on who has had the more challenging game of life.
Edit: I was thinking about your comment. You bring up a legitimate list of concerns that I happen to agree with you on. I just don't really care for the way it was delivered. I think you could win a lot more support if you presented the argument less as a competition for who has it worse, and more as a way to illuminate issues for people who may not be aware or who may have not given these issues much though.
It is a trend I notice in online discussions. In the gender competitions, it seems the one who wins is reprimanded more than the one who started it.
I think the above statement needs to be qualified. It's most likely true in most of the third world, but in the developed world, women enjoy many of the advantages that men don't, so it's really hard to claim who has more difficulties...
"middle-aged men are most at risk" So obviously not a recent attack on male children. Indeed the problem is greatest among people who are older then the average poster to this thread let alone their often hypothetical children.
There is obviously a serious problem here, apparently related to age, and instead of a sensible discussion it's shoehorned into some men's right agenda. It appears that HN is frequented by individuals so extremist it clouds even their basic critical thinking.
It makes about as much sense as claiming George Price's mental illness didn't cause his suicide but his generosity did it. Or voting to the front page an article about ending the fiscal "evils" of democracy by building an unseaworthy boat.
From the linked article - "In 2013, if you were a man between the ages of 20 and 49 who’d died, the most likely cause was not assault nor car crash nor drug abuse nor heart attack, but a decision that you didn’t wish to live any more".
Dismissing the people who try to talk about these issues and branding everyone 'MRAs' seems like an attempt to kill any discussion, normally by those who cannot argue with the statistics.
But as important as this issue is, some of the most upvoted posts include:
"TV...only show men as drunken idiots",
"We're turning into a bunch of sissy, touchy feely men",
"This is a product of the wrong people continuously trying to redefine masculinity",
"The issue has ... everything to do with the current crop of overly loud feminists"
So yes, any discussion was annihilated by MRAs griping about TV shows, feminists and "good ol' fashioned values" because we can safely say none of this is why a 50 year old or Iraq vet kill themselves. You have a screwed up economy, a society that throws away anyone over 45 and utterly inadequate social protections of any sort, even to vets, because that's "socialist". And some of the people most damaged by it have had their justifiable anger mindless redirected at women and TV.
Actually the only thing accomplished here was to make hn just a little more of laughable to recruitment managers.
Often it is the subtle, everyday things that you can't put your finger on that trouble the subconscious the most. So while an advert here or a comment there might be inconsequential, years or even decades of constant exposure will take its toll.
In the UK there has been a lot of talk about how austerity measures have effected people at the bottom of the food chain - people's pensions cut, social welfare limits etc.
I don't know if it was deliberate, but it definitely brought to mind the quote attributed (most likely incorrectly) to Stalin concerning deaths, tragedies, and statistics.
Suicide is complex. Suicide is common - it's a leading cause of death for some men.
We need to make it acceptable for men to seek help when they are suicidal.
This does not mean that we need men to talk and talk and talk about their intimate feelings. But we do need to make it so men can say "I'm not having a good day" and have someone else say "is it the kind of thing you want to talk to me about? Or is it the kind of thing you might want to talk to a doctor about?"
And you know what? This is exactly what my most outspoken-feminist female friend does. The MRAs have the wrong of things IMHO, and I'm glad I have good friends.
When somebody has an ideological belief that you're luckier than they are it's difficult for them to feel empathy for you.
It's always going to depend on who you know, and I'm not trying to say that feminism has made her a compassionate person, just that my friend is a good person regardless and her dedication to feminism hasn't made her into any sort of man-hating caricature.
Outspoken feminism can mean many things.
Examples of outspoken feminism also include Jezebel, a mainstream feminist website that is highly popular with my female friends. It publishes an article saying "Have You Ever Beat Up a Boyfriend? Because, Uh, We Have" that includes lines like "...slapped a guy when "he told me he thought he had breast cancer. (Okay, that one made us laugh really hard.)"  (Note that men can get breast cancer.)
I'm not quite sure it's only the so-called MRAs that 'have the wrong kind of thing'. Mainstream feminism can also be pretty ridiculous.
Also please note that at no point have I said "all feminism is good and right all the time", I think much of the hysterical stuff on the net is counterproductive (at best) and some of it is downright hostile to all men.
--edit-- But I think that there is 'good' feminism in abundance as well, whereas I don't think that this exists very much in the MRA space.
"Good" feminists provide cover for "bad" feminists. Thus, all feminists are bad.
I'm not quite buying that.
But let's not quibble here---most feminists are collectivists advocating for what they perceive as their in-group at the expense of others. There are very few self-professed feminists who would be good, were it merely not for the label.
Also, the reason you can't understand is probably because you are trying not to. Turning my point into something about cake is probably not an honest attempt to understand my point, but is probably a dishonest attempt to dismiss it.
I'd love to see your study on what most feminists advocate, it would make fascinating reading, what was your methodology?
This shows that you put people's whims over the truth. You'd rather influence by intimidation than by referencing reality and using reason. I don't think this kind of behavior should be tolerated by this community.
> I'd love to see your study on what most feminists advocate, it would make fascinating reading, what was your methodology?
This is the other side of the same coin. You hold that nothing is true without some sort of research study, knowing full well that such studies are too concretely empirical to be used to draw reliable conclusions (which is why they often appear to disagree with one another). That leaves nothing but whims and intimidation.
What is vaguely frustrating about that? The thesis of many commentators seems to be, "Of course men are going to commit suicide. Society often acts in ways strongly unfavorable towards them.", which may possibly not align with your views. I see no reason for bundling them with the "MRA" label/slur.
I think it is already acceptable for men to seek help when already suicidal. If I told one of my co-workers "I'm feeling suicidal", your statement of "is it the kind of thing you want to talk to me about? Or is it the kind of thing you might want to talk to a doctor about?" is exactly the kind of answer I would get, and this is true about most decent-thinking people. (In fact, your specific statement sounded pretty insincere to me, and would almost suggest "Please don't talk to me about this," in real life.)
The real problem is why so many men are seeking to seriously commit suicide in the first place, which is why those "frustrating MRAs" are probably talking about it.
There's a difference between saying "here's a bunch of stuff that makes it harder for men" (not MRAs) and saying "women did it" (MRAs). There are a weird number of posts here unequivocally saying "the women did it". That view isn't supported by the statistics which show higher rates of completed suicide by men for many many years, since before feminist movements became active.
> I think it is already acceptable for men to seek help when suicidal.
Notice that I'm talking about mental health before the person is suicidal. We know that most people with a mental health problem experience stigma. Also note that previous threads about suicide have had fucking awful examples of wha people think is the right thing to say when someone is suicidal. ("Why don't you go whitewater rafting instead?" Etc)
Why did so many men die from testicular cancer? They do not seek help when they find a lump on a testicle. We had extensive campaigns to get men to see a doctor when they find a lump to help reduce the death rate from testicular cancer.
Why do so many men attempt suicide? Because they do not seek help when depressed nor when suicidal. We know that men do mot seek help from anyone for their mental health. We think that getting men having simple conversations about their mental health will make it easier for them to seek help when they need it.
An example of the type of conversation (see the Matt and Tim video): http://www.time-to-change.org.uk/talking-about-mental-health
If you had a broken arm, in a cast, would you talk about it with your family? Your neighbour? On a first date? At a job interview? Now (obviously) swap "broken arm" with "mental health problem" and see if your answers change. Most people's answers do change, and this is what is being targetted when campaigners are asking people to talk about their mental health.
Did we? I don't recall people wearing anything in support of testicular cancer awareness, but many frequently wear pink ribbons. I also don't really recall a campaign from my childhood, except one (1) occasion when doctors told us (university student) to self-inspect our balls.
Maybe it's better in the US, though.
I don't see any posts saying that women are responsible for the current condition of men; only ones saying that they are, in some ways, far more privileged in terms of being treated favorably in the average case. Please feel free to link or quote any posts that say "It's specifically only the female part of society that is responsible for this." I am pretty sure they won't be anywhere near the top.
If you asked me, I would say that it is mainly large corporations, political parties, and some educational institutions that cheerlead femininity and demonize masculinity in the hope of getting more votes/sales/students. These can have both male and female components.
> We think that getting men having simple conversations about their mental health will make it easier for them to seek help when they need it.
This is correct. However, you are talking about addressing the symptom, and the so-called MRAs about addressing the cause. You are saying "it is essential to get quinine to malaria victims", and they are saying "there are a lot of disease vectors here, how can we stop them?". It is not at all clear that one view is more valid than the other.
Incredibly frustrating that what started as an OK discussion about male social experiences when I went to bed, now has people willing to fundamentally misrepresent the tenor of conversation because it doesn't occur on their terms. You yourself define "MRAs" as those saying "women did it" which didn't seem to be the majority here. (unless not explicitly saying "this is only the fault of men" is equivalent to blaming women)
I'm sure the tide will change though, as people (ie You) seem to be rolling in wanting to have the same go-nowhere internet arguments again and again rather than discuss things on terms outside their comfortable narratives. You're just priming the pot for the conversations you deride. Thanks buddy!
Socially, it is unacceptable for men to be "losers". To have any social standing men have to do what is "respectable". Losing a job, for example, is not.
Why can't a man be appreciated for who he is? Why does he have lower standing if he makes min wage or does something boring? Maybe he has other things he takes care of. Maybe he has a deep personality and even deeper interests.
To be honest, once I realized that this is how males are treated in real world, I started having more respect for men in any situation...for I know what they've been through. The world is cursed for men.
A few years ago I was very stressed out. I thought that talking about my problems (college, family, whatever) would have helped me. I shared my worries and fears with a few my female friends. Bad idea.
> “A man who’s needing help is seen as a figure of fun”
I had read the overview page on wikipedia, where the numbers aren't broken down by men and women for China
instead, they provide a link here:
It's a bit of a shame, because I had scanned the first page in the past and the higher female to male ratio would have jumped out at me since it's unusual. I'm not suggesting in any way that there's any deliberate suppression of info here, the reason the male/female numbers for China aren't printed in the summary is because reporting is controversial (official govt numbers are at odds with other independent studies), and so is complicated enough to warrant its own page.
It is worth a look, with some interesting implications.
Can anyone recommend any vacation destinations or some other form of a get-away for a week or two? I've been getting really stressed out lately, probably a burn out. Have been thinking about some sort of a vacation anywhere from a cruise to meditation retreat, can't make up my mind. Any recommendations?
Not to derail this topic but this article outlined some symptoms I have, feel like I need a break.
Another piece of advice is to stay away from crowds like you pointed out. There is a seemingly infinite amount of destinations that could satisfy this requirement too.
Best of luck! I hope you find something suited to you and feel refreshed after getting back.
You might be interested in the concept of masculine / feminine societies (checkout geert-hofstede.com), because as a texan, you are probably in one of the most masculine places in the world, which is probably rather stressful. I would suggest, if you decide to travel abroad, to go to a country that is considered to be a feminine society, like Sweden or Thailand (avoid the south though, and the party islands). I was astounded that a huge city like Bangkok could feel so relaxed, it is a different life.
Though I have to say, traveling is often not advisable when you are depressed. You have higher expectations of happiness that are impossible to fulfill, plus often higher stress levels, which will likely make matters worse.
Perhaps best of all, you'll be outside of cell coverage.
Where exactly matters little, the point is to make it two weeks during which you ignore work and aren't watching news and TV all day long. Your body and mind needs about a week to snap out of your life routine and start resting -- which it does during the second week.
I remember reading a strange question on Quora once. A woman was trying to figure out why her husband was always drunk and suicidal. "He used to be the perfect man! I don't understand why he's acting like this now." Of course, in the next paragraph, she mentions that it all started right after she had cheated on him. The disconnect between her behavior and her failure to recognize its consequences was staggering.