Can we have one day please

124

Comments

  • Why have women been able to make this huge transition in their societal expectations and it seems to be too difficult for men?
    Partly because the transition women are going through is about a lot about empowerment, whereas men are necessarily going through de-powerment (is that a word?).

    Life is difficult for lots of people. Useful role models are good for everyone. Support networks and things that give people worth and meaning are good. It's nice when we all just support each other and encourage each other whatever gender we are. I dunno about the roots of Internal Men's Day are (and @Tubbs has given me some pause for thought), but in general something that tries to support mental health & do something about male suicide rates (which is seems to be about now) is surely a good thing, right?
  • Why have women been able to make this huge transition in their societal expectations and it seems to be too difficult for men?
    Partly because the transition women are going through is about a lot about empowerment, whereas men are necessarily going through de-powerment (is that a word?).

    The kinds of jobs available to poorly educated young moms in economically depressed rural areas are not usually "empowering". Have you ever worked in customer service or as a healthcare aide? Assault and sexual harassment are a regular part of the job.
  • Why have women been able to make this huge transition in their societal expectations and it seems to be too difficult for men?
    Partly because the transition women are going through is about a lot about empowerment, whereas men are necessarily going through de-powerment (is that a word?).

    Life is difficult for lots of people. Useful role models are good for everyone. Support networks and things that give people worth and meaning are good. It's nice when we all just support each other and encourage each other whatever gender we are. I dunno about the roots of Internal Men's Day are (and @Tubbs has given me some pause for thought), but in general something that tries to support mental health & do something about male suicide rates (which is seems to be about now) is surely a good thing, right?

    Pretty much. The saddest thing I've had to do so far in my other career as Vicar's Wife is attend the funeral of a young man who'd killed himself. If a day, whatever it's called, saves one life, then it would be worth it.
  • It doesn't have to be a competition. Reinventing yourself is tough for anybody, and whatever support we can offer to people of whatever gender is a blessing.
  • goperryrevsgoperryrevs Shipmate
    edited November 2019
    (X-post with @Tubbs and @Lamb Chopped, and exactly, LC. It definitely doesn't have to be a competition)

    @Antisocial Alto Very true, but being able to work at all is part of the empowerment process towards equality. This is not about making excuses for anyone, but you asked why men are struggling with those transitions more than women. Perhaps it's just because women are stronger, but I think that part of it is that when we talk about what it means to be a woman, it's about celebration, empowerment, equality etc. etc. - all good things. When we talk about what it means to be a man, it's mostly negative (as we've seen on this thread). There are great historical reasons for that, but in a world where many people struggle with identity, it's a reality that many men feel powerless (yes, @lilbuddha despite not realising how entitled they actually are), are unable to talk about their emotions and mental health, and so hit the different crises that result in violence or hatred - either towards themselves, or towards others.

    Women go through endless crap in society, and objectively, ISTM it's worse than what men on average endure. However, the logical follow up to that is not that men don't go through any crap at all, or that the crap men go through doesn't matter because it's different / not as bad.
  • And, the thing is ... If you want people to be better, then you have to be better as well. Screaming at people, calling them out or hi-jacking the very real rage that some groups feel to justify your own upset isn't going to change hearts and minds. It's about listening, learning, showing people how these things impact their own lives and helping them figure things out. And picking your battles. Because, let's face it, some people won't ever change their minds however fabulous your argument.

    Ron Wesley in Harry Potter is a great example of the kind of evolution I'm thinking about. At the start of the book he's kind-hearted but a bit clueless. He's proud of being a pure blood, a bit dubious about muggles, prejudiced about werewolves and couldn't give a stuff about house elves. By the end of the book, he's in love with a half-blood, best mates with Lupin and worried about whether the house elves will be okay as the Battle of Hogwarts kicks off.
  • Hugal wrote: »
    I think that underlying the OP's request for 'men' to have a day to be 'men' is a belief that men are to some extent being sidelined or ignored or muted in some way.

    That is nonsense of course but I suspect it's driven by societal change. That change is twofold:
    1. Social expectations of male behaviour, attitudes, and responsibilities is not what it was thirty years ago.
    2. And crucially, social expectations of female behaviour, attitudes, and responsibilities is not what it was thirty years ago.

    I say 'crucially because much of the traditional expectations of male behaviour, attitudes, and responsibilities was based on what females were expected to do, or more often expected not to do or actively excluded from. The male role was then to do what the female could not do for herself.

    In other words, with female independence and emancipation male identity had to change as the traditional male role was no longer required and while many younger males have adopted new forms of behaviour, attitudes, and responsibilities. not all have (hence the evil INCEL movement) and many older males have been left bitter and disorientated.

    There is a similar phenomenon among some older females who want men to have the out-dated qualities of power and dominance.

    Not sidelined painted in a way that is not true. Men are changing. Yet we are still seen as oppressors. The system we inherited is wrong not men. We are expected to be a positive role model for boys but what they see on TV and social media is often negative. Often how bad men are and have been. It pisses me off. We need to change the way men are viewed. Not as misogynistic dinosaurs but positive people who are changing.
    Men still are oppressors. Obviously, not all men, but this is still a man's world, so men as a group are. Men who work against this should be lauded. I'm not so convinced that the ones who are simply not dicks should be. Not being a dick should be the default. Should I thank every white person who doesn't try to enslave me? Should I be thankful or acknowledge shop employees because they didn't follow me around the store whilst I was shopping?
    Men changing is a good thing and I do think it should be noted that some are.
    But also it should be noted that they system is still very biased and congratulating men for not all being dicks doesn't fix it.
    Though I do agree that men in non-traditional roles should be highlighted and accepted.
    That is actually part of the same fight as feminism is.
    Also, what @Antisocial Alto said.
  • @lilbuddha wrote: Days/months exist to counter the rubbish that exists as the default. Again, it is about being equal. The celebration comes as a counter to the denigration that is the societal norm.

    Exactly this! An how useful would it be to have a day that countered the default rubbish narrative about men. A narrative that has broken so many men through denigrating societal norms.

    @Doublethink I’ve come across CALM in railway station men’s toilets. I think it’s great work. Thanks for posting it here.

    @Jemima the 9th asks what men that Hugal, Mousethief and I would like women to do. And thank you. I’d like to be allowed a space to discuss and share what it means to navigate through life as XY. Without people pissing on my chips.

    @Colin Smith wrote: I think that underlying the OP's request for 'men' to have a day to be 'men' is a belief that men are to some extent being sidelined or ignored or muted in some way.
    I don’t think anyone has said this here. I think people are very clear that there are significant issues with men’s mental and physical health, and that it would be useful to create light and space for an exploration and addressing of this.

    @Antisocial Alto posted some interesting stuff showing that men are much weaker and less able to adapt to change than women. Maybe that might provide a reason why we need space and support.

    And @lilbuddha as usual I am unsure how you think change might be achieved by telling people that they are oppressors. But we had an exchange of a similar nature on the toxic masculinity thread some months ago, and it seems that neither of us has moved on. Perhaps it is that I believe that toxic masculinity is deeply damaging to men, and that doing some work this damage might for many be a precursor to other action.

    Asher
  • mousethief wrote: »
    The majority male response tends to be ‘It’s not fair! Why the fuck should women get a day? This is gender inequality right here! Why don’t we get a day?’"

    On what do you base this broad brushing?

    Woah! I was quoting @fineline at that point, and arguing against a broad brush approach.

    I apologize for the mistake. My lack of caution was my fault. Your forgiveness.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    I really really really dislike intensely any suggestion that there is systemic or structural discrimination against men.

    Based on Tubb's extract above, you can fuck international men's day sky high.

    So you disagree with people who say the Patriarchy negatively affects men as well as women?
  • In other words, with female independence and emancipation male identity had to change as the traditional male role was no longer required and while many younger males have adopted new forms of behaviour, attitudes, and responsibilities. not all have (hence the evil INCEL movement) and many older males have been left bitter and disorientated.

    Yes. And that is something that needs to be addressed and healed, not dumped on with scorn and anger and "fuck this" pronouncements. We have a bunch of hurting and confused men, and the response seems to be to knock them over and kick them in the ribs. They are hurting because the lie that the patriarchal system has been telling them all their lives is finally being exposed. But what does that matter when there is self-righteousness to be bolstered by attacking them?
  • mousethiefmousethief Shipmate
    edited November 2019
    Why have women been able to make this huge transition in their societal expectations and it seems to be too difficult for men?

    A lot of confusion here. (1) Women, particularly single women and particularly particularly single mothers, have always been breadwinners. It was not seen as shameful, the way a man being a stay-at-home dad was (and in many places still is) seen as shameful. So this huge transition isn't a huge transition. (2) Why does it matter if it's difficult for men? If something is difficult for someone, the right thing to do is help them, not attack them. (3) Why make this comparison at all? This is the sort of thing we have in the States about forgiveness of student loans. "I paid mine off, why should you have yours forgiven?" Selfish jealousy. "We didn't get any help, why should you?" Well it was wrong that you didn't get any help. That doesn't make it right to refuse to help others. Two wrongs do not a right make.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    A lot of confusion here. (1) Women, particularly single women and particularly particularly single mothers, have always been breadwinners. It was not seen as shameful, the way a man being a stay-at-home dad was (and in many places still is) seen as shameful. So this huge transition isn't a huge transition.

    ... Are you high right now? Yes, women have always been breadwinners when it's been necessary to support their families, but in the US it used to be about 25% of working-age women in full-time paid work, versus about 75% now (source). That is a huge change.

    And if you think women, especially mothers, working full-time aren't shamed and blamed for all kinds of societal problems even in 2019, I can only conclude you've been living under a rock for the past fifty years.

    My point is that patriarchy works equally hard to keep men seeking Manly Breadwinning Jobs and women at home with the kids, and punishes all of us if we deviate from our assigned roles. But for some reason working-class women are doing better at breaking the pattern than men, and we certainly aren't getting tongue baths from the New York Times every five minutes about Our Dying Way of Life and how we have to struggle and suffer in a changing world.

    I'm not saying no one should get help. I'm questioning the assumption that men have a uniquely hard row to hoe in a changing economy.
  • I'm not saying no one should get help. I'm questioning the assumption that men have a uniquely hard row to hoe in a changing economy.

    Well since nobody here has said that, I wonder why you feel the need to bring it up with such vehemence.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    A lot of confusion here. (1) Women, particularly single women and particularly particularly single mothers, have always been breadwinners. It was not seen as shameful, the way a man being a stay-at-home dad was (and in many places still is) seen as shameful. So this huge transition isn't a huge transition.

    ... Are you high right now? Yes, women have always been breadwinners when it's been necessary to support their families, but in the US it used to be about 25% of working-age women in full-time paid work, versus about 75% now (source). That is a huge change.

    And if you think women, especially mothers, working full-time aren't shamed and blamed for all kinds of societal problems even in 2019, I can only conclude you've been living under a rock for the past fifty years.

    My point is that patriarchy works equally hard to keep men seeking Manly Breadwinning Jobs and women at home with the kids, and punishes all of us if we deviate from our assigned roles. But for some reason working-class women are doing better at breaking the pattern than men, and we certainly aren't getting tongue baths from the New York Times every five minutes about Our Dying Way of Life and how we have to struggle and suffer in a changing world.

    I'm not saying no one should get help. I'm questioning the assumption that men have a uniquely hard row to hoe in a changing economy.

    Working class women have always worked. It's not new. Being the primary earner in a family is, but not the working itself. The 1950s housewife was always a middle class fantasy, not a description of working class lives.
  • mousethiefmousethief Shipmate
    edited November 2019
    ... Are you high right now?

    Less vituperous personal attack would make this conversation move more smoothly.
    Yes, women have always been breadwinners when it's been necessary to support their families, but in the US it used to be about 25% of working-age women in full-time paid work, versus about 75% now (source). That is a huge change.

    First men are yelled at for keeping women out of the workforce, now we're yelled at for women's participation in the workforce. I wonder why this is.
    And if you think women, especially mothers, working full-time aren't shamed and blamed for all kinds of societal problems even in 2019, I can only conclude you've been living under a rock for the past fifty years.

    I'm sure that's true. Why are you insulting ME about it? I didn't do it. Go insult someone who is shaming and blaming. Then go back and address my other two points, of your courtesy.

  • mousethief wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    The majority male response tends to be ‘It’s not fair! Why the fuck should women get a day? This is gender inequality right here! Why don’t we get a day?’"

    On what do you base this broad brushing?

    Woah! I was quoting @fineline at that point, and arguing against a broad brush approach.

    I apologize for the mistake. My lack of caution was my fault. Your forgiveness.

    Freely given. It won't be long before I need yours after a cockup, I'm sure.
  • Seems to be not all that much space for men who are open about their own brokenness to talk about it.

    I'm hearing some t*xic femininity on this thread.
  • asher wrote: »
    Seems to be not all that much space for men who are open about their own brokenness to talk about it.

    I'm hearing some t*xic femininity on this thread.

    Can we have one day? Fuck no! We can't even have one thread.
  • smh. Y’all have 365 days.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    smh. Y’all have 365 days.

    We've been over this. All 365 days of the year are not set aside to deal with the problems that men face in our society. This message apparently just isn't welcome. Hence the attitude of the title.
  • lilbuddhalilbuddha Shipmate
    edited November 2019
    the problems men face are created by men and the culture they espouse 365 days.
    So, Men’s Mental Health Day?👍🏽
    Men Explore Toxic Masculinity Day?👍🏽
    Asher’s contention that men are oppressed and need a Celebrate Men’s Day? Yeah, not so much.
    Men, as a group, are not oppressed.
    The subset of men who face oppression do so because of the presentation of masculinity as a group.
    Men who do not fit the cultural definitions and expectations and suffer because of it deserve support.
    International Men’s Day, though, is tone deaf at best.
  • Originally posted by mouse thief:
    First men are yelled at for keeping women out of the workforce, now we're yelled at for women's participation in the workforce. I wonder why this is.
    Because men created the situation in which women are not supposed to be in the workplace and when women have to go to work, they are shamed by the same system.
  • asher wrote: »
    @lilbuddha wrote: Days/months exist to counter the rubbish that exists as the default. Again, it is about being equal. The celebration comes as a counter to the denigration that is the societal norm.

    Exactly this! An how useful would it be to have a day that countered the default rubbish narrative about men. A narrative that has broken so many men through denigrating societal norms.
    Societal norms are the problem, on this we agree. But societal norms do not denigrate men as a group. They punish men who do not conform and this is not good.
    Again, the problem with International Men’s Day is that men still dominate our cultures and that day comes across as similar to a Celebrate White People Day.
    asher wrote: »

    And @lilbuddha as usual I am unsure how you think change might be achieved by telling people that they are oppressors.
    Please note that was a response to you saying that men are not oppressors.
    asher wrote: »

    But we had an exchange of a similar nature on the toxic masculinity thread some months ago, and it seems that neither of us has moved on. Perhaps it is that I believe that toxic masculinity is deeply damaging to men, and that doing some work this damage might for many be a precursor to other action.

    Asher
    I agree that toxic masculinity is damaging to some men and that changing this is good. Both for men and women.

  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Originally posted by mouse thief:
    First men are yelled at for keeping women out of the workforce, now we're yelled at for women's participation in the workforce. I wonder why this is.
    Because men created the situation in which women are not supposed to be in the workplace and when women have to go to work, they are shamed by the same system.

    Oh, for God's sake. Is there a patriarchal structure to the societies most shippies inhabit? Sure. But looking around at the men and women I interact with, I don't see men "creating situations in which women are not supposed to be in the workplace," etc. I see men, and women, too, carrying on in the culturally-normalized roles they've fallen into and accepted because rebelling against these leads to a difficult life.

    As we notice and discuss the resulting inequities, consciousness-raising takes place and leads to gradual change. Once in a while, it's nice to recall that hardly any men blocked my path to a voting booth in a recent election, and no men of my acquaintance are lobbying for me to up my risk of heart disease or give back my graduate degree as having been illegitimately award to a female.
  • There is no incremental success, Ohher. It has to come all at once and be completely global and all-encompassing, or it's not success at all, or at the very least doesn't deserve to be noticed or lauded.
  • OhherOhher Shipmate
    Sadly, mousethief, I do believe you've skipped a step or 19. Doesn't it also have to be analyzed into incomprehensible shreds, then scrubbed of every conceivable taint, and finally pronounced pure by the Ship's self-appointed Moral Authority?
  • mousethief wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    I really really really dislike intensely any suggestion that there is systemic or structural discrimination against men.

    Based on Tubb's extract above, you can fuck international men's day sky high.

    So you disagree with people who say the Patriarchy negatively affects men as well as women?

    I agree with those people.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    I really really really dislike intensely any suggestion that there is systemic or structural discrimination against men.

    Based on Tubb's extract above, you can fuck international men's day sky high.

    So you disagree with people who say the Patriarchy negatively affects men as well as women?

    I agree with those people.

    It's just not systemic or structural, then?
  • sorry, I don't really understand why you ask that. Are you saying that it's inconsistent to object to the notion that there is systemic/structural (they're tautologous I suppose) discrimination against men, and also hold that the Patriarchy negatively affects men and women?
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    edited November 2019
    Lilbuda
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    asher wrote: »
    @lilbuddha wrote: Days/months exist to counter the rubbish that exists as the default. Again, it is about being equal. The celebration comes as a counter to the denigration that is the societal norm.

    Exactly this! An how useful would it be to have a day that countered the default rubbish narrative about men. A narrative that has broken so many men through denigrating societal norms.
    Societal norms are the problem, on this we agree. But societal norms do not denigrate men as a group. They punish men who do not conform and this is not good.
    Again, the problem with International Men’s Day is that men still dominate our cultures and that day comes across as similar to a Celebrate White People Day.
    asher wrote: »

    And @lilbuddha as usual I am unsure how you think change might be achieved by telling people that they are oppressors.
    Please note that was a response to you saying that men are not oppressors.
    asher wrote: »

    But we had an exchange of a similar nature on the toxic masculinity thread some months ago, and it seems that neither of us has moved on. Perhaps it is that I believe that toxic masculinity is deeply damaging to men, and that doing some work this damage might for many be a precursor to other action.

    Asher
    I agree that toxic masculinity is damaging to some men and that changing this is good. Both for men and women.

    You really are not listening are you. Yes previous generations built up a patriarchal structure. Just because it is there doesn’t mean that men are complicit now. Some are some aren’t. In fact a lot aren’t. Instead of constantly dumping on today’s men for something they inherited try recognising that things are changing. Try encouraging instead of knocking them back. Women have fought hard for equality, to break glass ceilings. I have no trouble with this but instead of chewing our balls of for something we inherited encourage us in the change. Men need to find their place in society again as it keeps changing. Accept that that is a quite a big deal on the identity front. As I said we need to acknowledge the issues and deal with them. Don’t piss on our cornflakes when we are doing what is right. Thing will not change overnight. Accept that. Keep pushing for women to be treated better but don’t knock back progress.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    sorry, I don't really understand why you ask that. Are you saying that it's inconsistent to object to the notion that there is systemic/structural (they're tautologous I suppose) discrimination against men, and also hold that the Patriarchy negatively affects men and women?

    What would you call a specific negative effect on one group preferentially if not a discrimination? In what ways isn't it?
  • It's discrimination, but direct discrimination, they way people's internalised patriarchal attitudes impact upon men.

    I always find it hard to define systemic discrimination. My pet peeve is the complaint that the Family Law System discriminates against men. It may be that people express complaints that amount to both direct and systemic discrimination concerning that system. Direct would be alleging that a Judge doesn't think blokes should be the primary carer of kids. Systemic would be that the law itself is written in such a way that men are unlikely to be the primary carer of the kids.

    As I think about it, I'm not sure whether indirect and systemic discrimination describe the same concept. I think they do, but as I say I find that particular point difficult.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    It's discrimination, but direct discrimination, they way people's internalised patriarchal attitudes impact upon men.

    I always find it hard to define systemic discrimination. My pet peeve is the complaint that the Family Law System discriminates against men. It may be that people express complaints that amount to both direct and systemic discrimination concerning that system. Direct would be alleging that a Judge doesn't think blokes should be the primary carer of kids. Systemic would be that the law itself is written in such a way that men are unlikely to be the primary carer of the kids.

    As I think about it, I'm not sure whether indirect and systemic discrimination describe the same concept. I think they do, but as I say I find that particular point difficult.

    Indirect is (e.g.) barring people under 5' 6" . It's sexist because most adults under that height are women, even though the rule doesn't mention sex or gender at all.

    Systemic is about how systems produce discriminatory results. So a college might go to its physics and psychology classes and photograph the students. Almost all the students in the first are male, in the second female. The photos go into the prospectus and subtly perpetuate the divide.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    asher wrote: »
    Seems to be not all that much space for men who are open about their own brokenness to talk about it.

    I'm hearing some t*xic femininity on this thread.

    Can we have one day? Fuck no! We can't even have one thread.

    To be fair, women don’t get their day either, as it gets shat on by dickwad men asking “International Women’s Day? Pah! When do we get to have International Men’s Day?”

    I say the shat on should unite in solidarity against the shitters, regardless of gender. See Richard Herring’s yearly sponsored twitter campaign where he responds to every tweet asking the above, telling them exactly when International Men’s day is; he raises money for Shelter.
  • Y’all do realise there is a thread in Epiphanies now ? It has a dearth of male voices, perhaps go join it.
  • Ah, thanks @Doublethink
  • MarkDMarkD Shipmate
    Hugal wrote: »
    How the hell are men supposed to be a positive role model to boys if there is nothing positive about masculinity. Why is there such a crappy idea of men in the Ship. Not all men are Bastards. Some of us are actually quite nice. What being a man means has and is changing. We are always going to be a bit behind. Let’s give men a boost instead of kicking them in the balls

    Okay, I made it this far without replying but let me just say I do find the topic interesting. I've always been interested in what the essential differences are (if there are any) between the sexes, and I mean regarding traits, tendencies or strengths and not anatomy or tradition. I've mostly come to the conclusion that individual variability is probably greater than any average difference, if not in every regard then at least most.

    I'm new to the ship so I don't know what opinions there are about men in general here. I have to confess, as a man, that I prefer the company of women. Always have. But that is probably because my father was pretty stunted in his ability to understand others or to communicate by his life circumstances. My mother, while manic depressive, was also extremely empathetic and intuitive. But that is not a type difference that characterizes all women or all men. But in general women I've known are more readily in touch with what they're feeling whereas it has taken some time to merely become proficient for me. But I've also had the pleasure to know some very intuitive, insightful and articulate men. Gay men do seem to have the advantage here, perhaps because they generally don't absorb all the male socialization we straights do.

    You're probably right that we could give men a boost when they're little boys in some of these areas, somehow change the cultural messaging. I think that is happening already. Leastwise to some degree even if the dominant message is still compete, don't feel and don't express. I wonder to what degree these messages drive the stranglehold men have had on power and wealth in the west. (Is it worldwide?) I remember my professor in a women in film class asking after viewing a film "why don't we/they try putting women in charge some time". I had to say, if power were the kind of thing that was handed out by merit, we could have found better men too. But power is taken, not given, and go figure, the sex that is less well prepared to nurture has been more successful at taking.


  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    I really really really dislike intensely any suggestion that there is systemic or structural discrimination against men.

    Based on Tubb's extract above, you can fuck international men's day sky high.

    So you disagree with people who say the Patriarchy negatively affects men as well as women?

    I agree with those people.

    Waves hand. Me as well. I don't think the current state of play - which is baked into the system - actually helps anyone. I've got no idea what to do about it apart from either trying to be a good ally or finding others to ally with me. But I do know that lecturing and hectoring people changes little.
  • I find the proliferation of International days (men, women, dogs, cats, trees etc etc) beyond ridiculous. Who on earth decided that we should have such silly days?
  • It doesn't have to be a competition. Reinventing yourself is tough for anybody, and whatever support we can offer to people of whatever gender is a blessing.

    True. But it has to start with a person realising that they need to change rather than them getting angry and upset that the world has changed.
  • Hugal wrote: »
    Lilbuda
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    asher wrote: »
    @lilbuddha wrote: Days/months exist to counter the rubbish that exists as the default. Again, it is about being equal. The celebration comes as a counter to the denigration that is the societal norm.

    Exactly this! An how useful would it be to have a day that countered the default rubbish narrative about men. A narrative that has broken so many men through denigrating societal norms.
    Societal norms are the problem, on this we agree. But societal norms do not denigrate men as a group. They punish men who do not conform and this is not good.
    Again, the problem with International Men’s Day is that men still dominate our cultures and that day comes across as similar to a Celebrate White People Day.
    asher wrote: »

    And @lilbuddha as usual I am unsure how you think change might be achieved by telling people that they are oppressors.
    Please note that was a response to you saying that men are not oppressors.
    asher wrote: »

    But we had an exchange of a similar nature on the toxic masculinity thread some months ago, and it seems that neither of us has moved on. Perhaps it is that I believe that toxic masculinity is deeply damaging to men, and that doing some work this damage might for many be a precursor to other action.

    Asher
    I agree that toxic masculinity is damaging to some men and that changing this is good. Both for men and women.

    You really are not listening are you. Yes previous generations built up a patriarchal structure. Just because it is there doesn’t mean that men are complicit now.
    That is a variable thing. Because the system exists, all men need do to benefit is do nothing. They needn't actively participate. To complete eschew participation they need to work against that system. Merely not actively being a dick doesn't suffice. You benefit by being male. You likely do not see it, systemic privilege is invisible by default to those who have it.
    I don't go around knocking men back, BTW. You began the discussion complaining about the response to International Men's Day and do you not yet get why that happened?

  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    It's discrimination, but direct discrimination, they way people's internalised patriarchal attitudes impact upon men.

    I always find it hard to define systemic discrimination. My pet peeve is the complaint that the Family Law System discriminates against men. It may be that people express complaints that amount to both direct and systemic discrimination concerning that system. Direct would be alleging that a Judge doesn't think blokes should be the primary carer of kids. Systemic would be that the law itself is written in such a way that men are unlikely to be the primary carer of the kids.

    As I think about it, I'm not sure whether indirect and systemic discrimination describe the same concept. I think they do, but as I say I find that particular point difficult.
    System means it is part of the system. It does not need to be delineated in law or code, it can be implicit.
    This is why anti-discrimination laws can exist and still discrimination occurs.
  • Tubbs wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    I really really really dislike intensely any suggestion that there is systemic or structural discrimination against men.

    Based on Tubb's extract above, you can fuck international men's day sky high.

    So you disagree with people who say the Patriarchy negatively affects men as well as women?

    I agree with those people.

    Waves hand. Me as well. I don't think the current state of play - which is baked into the system - actually helps anyone. I've got no idea what to do about it apart from either trying to be a good ally or finding others to ally with me. But I do know that lecturing and hectoring people changes little.
    Of course a system helps some in it, it is why a system persists. The argument would be that the patriarchy does not help everyone within the system, hence the suicide rates and the heath issues. And that it factors into the problems of growing economic disparity.

    The idea that it doesn't help anyone is obviously untrue. This list* is dominated by white men because systems benefit someone.

    *The two women in the list are there because of fortunes developed by men. And the two non-white men in the list are there because their ethnicity is dominate where they are.
  • To be very clear, I do not mean to imply that the systems only benefit those at the very top, just that hey are easy and clear refutations to the idea that the system benefits no one.
  • Y’all do realise there is a thread in Epiphanies now ? It has a dearth of male voices, perhaps go join it.

    Who likes getting slapped repeatedly?
  • Tubbs wrote: »
    But I do know that lecturing and hectoring people changes little.

    At least somebody here does.
  • It doesn't have to be a competition. Reinventing yourself is tough for anybody, and whatever support we can offer to people of whatever gender is a blessing.

    True. But it has to start with a person realising that they need to change rather than them getting angry and upset that the world has changed.

    And how are they going to realize they need to change? Getting boxed about the ears? Is that working so far?
  • BlahblahBlahblah Suspended
    edited November 2019
    I know and have met a lot of men who have never "succeeded". I've met a number of women who can be said to have done extremely well in life.

    I'm not sure how one words a campaign which seeks the uplift of white men without it becoming a vehicle for anger from reasonably successful men who have been overlooked, in a way that they weren't previously, in favour of women and other minorities.

    I think it can probably only be done by better defining the group one is talking about in a way that is not necessary when conducting a campaign encouraging the uplift of women and other minorities.
  • Two observations.

    Firstly, equal rights is not a pie. That women and minorities in white-majority countries now
    (legally) have the same opportunities as men is a thing to be celebrated.

    Secondly, only a dick would post a list of the world's richest people and use that to say that men are privileged. We already understand that because we're not on the list, we've failed as men. No need to rub it in.
This discussion has been closed.