Although maybe another way to put that point is that some people put everyone they know into the "friend zone."
I think it would be more accurate to say that the "friend zone" (or even "acquaintance zone") is the default. Nobody has to be "put" there.
Framing the situation as being "put in the friendzone" makes it something that is being done to someone against their will, and opens the possibility of argument that it was done unjustly. (Not that I'm saying that's a valid argument, just that it would be better to close it off completely.)
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure of the historicity of my view here, but my understanding was that "friend zone" was a rationalization that was invented to help assuage the feelings of people who aren't getting the romantic attention they feel entitled to.
Example:
quote: M: "Why won't you go out with me? I'm super nice, and I've always been there for you. I'm not a bad looking guy. What more could you ask for?"
W: <to herself> "Oh god...this is awkward." <out loud> "Well, it's like...you're my friend. You're kind of in my 'friend zone' - it's not that there's anything wrong with you, it's just that I have a hard time seeing you as anything other than a friend." <left unsaid> "There's just no spark there, sorry."
M: <not getting or caring the 'no spark' part> "Don't you want to date someone you can also be friends with? I think of you as my best friend, and I want nothing more than to really be with you."
W: <really doesn't want to hurt feelings or get trapped into a discussion of what he should do differently> "It's just hard to think of you as anything other than a friend."
M: <to himself> "Crap. Apparently once I'm in the friend zone, I'm there to stay. AVOID THE FRIEND ZONE."
In other words, it is NOT that the "friend zone" is literally a mental category that carries a special sort of inertia that is difficult to overcome once the assignment happens. So it doesn't follow that it's an [optional] bad idea to end up there, and you'll be more likely to win the girl you want if you avoid the "friend zone".
It's that this zone and the attendant inertia were creatively described to explain to someone why there will not be a romantic and physical relationship, in order to avoid directly saying that it's a lack of sufficient attraction, or an argument about why W should want to go out with M, or what M needs to do to convince W.
What's important to me about this distinction I'm trying to draw is that the root cause *is that feeling of entitlement*, and not a categorization event.
If M in the above scenario doesn't feel entitled to a relationship just because he's trying to have one and is convinced that she should want one too, then he doesn't force W to explain why not - he just accepts that she isn't interested.
If he doesn't invest his ego and self worth in winning her, she maybe doesn't feel forced to avoid pointing out that she's just not into him.*
If he doesn't conceive of her as an reward that can be earned through effort merit, she maybe doesn't sense a trap in explaining what it is about him that isn't quite to her taste, kicking off a indefinite cycle of "OK, I got in shape/make more money/am acting more aggressive. How about now?".
He needs to be straightforward about what he wants but also accept and honor what she wants. If he wants to be her friend, great. If he wants to be her friend so that she will want to be his girlfriend, he needs to stop when it's clear that she's not interested.
*It also helps if she's honest and straightforward, even if it means hurt feelings. Crushing his hopes might seem cruel, and she isn't responsible for obliviousness, but, pragmatically, maybe it's better to be clear and decisive about lack of interest. It's understandable that in some situations and with some people, there may be ways in which she does not feel safe to make an outright rejection. She should probably then get far away from that guy.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's worth pointing out that it goes both ways. I've been on both sides of friendships in which one party has become romantically interested in the other (never one in which one party was only interested in sex or a romantic relationship from the outset, and only feining friendship, though. Ick.) more than once.
Posts: 1087 | Registered: Jul 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I don't mean to imply that it's always a male going after an uninterested female, and definitely not that there's something inherently wrong with people who end up in that kind of situation by accident.
But among the people who complain the loudest about landing in the "friend zone", it appears very common for males to feign friendship in hopes for sex, and for there to be some indications of misogynistic views. :/
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah that's pretty solid, but ugh, I feel like both sides of the argument miss the mark.
White Men aren't under attack, and they aren't, as a whole in our society, marginalized. But they do occupy a questionable space. It's not the same as it is for minority men, who, especially black men, are very, very much under attack, have been for decades, and with no end in sight.
Society's response to the changing landscape for white men seems to be "deal with it," but I don't think they're (we're) handling it all that well at the moment. That whole "yesallwomen" thing came in response to men defensively interjecting themselves into women's debates on how men affect their lives, but it feel like the opposite happens too. If men try to have a legitimate discussion about problems they are facing, how their lives are changing, what new roles they just occupy in society, there's always a woman who jumps in to say "because you all have it soooo bad."
No one should seriously be arguing equivalance, but just because white men don't have it nearly as bad as white women doesn't mean we shouldn't be talking about things in a serious manner. That means the MRA folks need to tone it done from 10 to about a 2, and really hone in on legitimate issues for integrating into a more gender equal society, rather than bitching about the lost status quo. Because there are legitimate issues for them to advocate for. They just aren't talking about them. And the other side, men and women both, need to stop bashing men as a knee jerk reaction to any time a man complains about his changing role in society.
It's just not constructive. Any of it.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the problem is that any discussion white men are going to have is "comparatively, our lot is getting worse relative to these other groups, whose lot is improving."
And people will be unsympathetic about that, even dismissive, because that's probably the way it should be.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not arguing against pouring some water out of our glass into women's to make things more equal.
I'm talking about how the water is poured.
My only interest is doing what works best for the most people with the least amount of resources necessary. No one wants to talk about men except to wring their hands when one of them does something stupid or violent or to tell them to sit down and shut up. And on the surface it FEELS right for exactly the reasons you state, because this change is necessary and our role in society has to change,
But if that's how people want to react, then let's stop being surprised when men do the things they do. Ignoring the problem won't make it go away.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Society's response to the changing landscape for white men seems to be "deal with it," but I don't think they're (we're) handling it all that well at the moment. That whole "yesallwomen" thing came in response to men defensively interjecting themselves into women's debates on how men affect their lives, but it feel like the opposite happens too. If men try to have a legitimate discussion about problems they are facing, how their lives are changing, what new roles they just occupy in society, there's always a woman who jumps in to say "because you all have it soooo bad."
I think this is a fair perception to have. It can feel like that sometimes. From my perspective, though, I tend to have sympathy for it in proportion to how the discussion came up. If for example the discussion is about how women are systematically, even at the highest levels, significantly underpaid compared to men, well then a white male in the United States is going to be in a poor position to complain of being singled out.
If, however, they were to respond with something about how yes, women are underpaid, and in fact many segments of society all over the place are underpaid for arbitrary and unfair reasons, and why don't we talk about workers' rights, I'm going to be very sympathetic. It's the part where a minority or gender mistreatment complaint is often latched on to in sometimes naïve, sometimes quite cynical efforts to piggyback on the emotional weight of injustice that will be rejected.
Of course all of that said, there are people who are utterly and casually dismissive of problems that are uniquely male and even uniquely unjust towards men. Someone who complains of the (very rare) cases in which a man might be compelled to pay child support for another man's child once it's been proven. Yeah, very authentic complaint. But to attempt to attach that to a broader discussion about how society is really starting to favor men...eh. Not sympathetic, to me at least. To attempt to attach that to 'ugh, our system of family laws in this country are often an absurd and ineffective mishmash, and we need systemic reform from the ground up', to me, sympathetic.
I also think part of the problem is that attempts to do the one can sound like the other. And particularly in online settings, casual misogyny can be so rife that people have instinctive responses which are understandable but not always helpful or accurate.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah. There are some legitimate issues that should be addressed, like the gender bias in custody arrangements, but they don't amount to an overall disadvantage.
quote:hat means the MRA folks need to tone it done from 10 to about a 2, and really hone in on legitimate issues for integrating into a more gender equal society
Yep, that's about right. I'd add, police their own for misogyny.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
I also think the fact that you both felt compelled to attach a qualifier to your statements proves my point.
It's impossible to have this discussion without adding "but women have it worse" in the fine print as a preventive measure. And it's true, absolutely, but the fact that it needs to be acknowledged at the top or bottom of every statement on men's issues is a little silly. And I blame both sides for that. The MRA folks have so poisoned the waters for legit discussions that there is zero good will when saying this stuff for a person to believe you aren't a mysoginistic jerk.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hope that, at least here, you aren't going to get a lot of sympathy for men bemoaning the fact that women, now usually capable of earning a living, are no longer consistently destitute enough to trade sex for food and shelter.
That is what the MRA groups and types like our unlamented Sinclive are arguing. Is is harder for men to get women to have sex with them now that we can feed ourselves? Sure. But, constructive or not, I am not shedding any tears for those who want us to go backwards.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe it's that the well has been poisoned to the point that it's impossible to have the discussion without qualifiers, or maybe it's just an inevitable side effect of the fact that men are speaking from a place of relative privilege? I think to some extent it's just human nature to be annoyed when the guy winning the game by 20 points is calling foul.
I dunno. I'm pretty sure I'd be okay saying "The bias toward mothers in child custody arrangements is problematic and I think it should change" without the qualifier, in a different context. But in the context of discussing MRA in general, I think you're right - there's enough crap and bad will out there to make it pretty difficult.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's at least a little aggressive and offensive for you to imply that Lyrhawn was asking for sympathy for such a perspective, you know.
For cripe's sake who are you even replying to? No one in this discussion asked that you shed tears for those perspectives.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wasn't implying that Lyrhawn (or anyone here other than Clive) was suggesting anything of the kind. In fact, I implied the opposite. I don't think that (again, other than Clive) you will find that here. I am saying that those are the arguments that the MRA groups are making. Because that is really what has changed for men. I is a real change and really does make things worse for them.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: Maybe it's that the well has been poisoned to the point that it's impossible to have the discussion without qualifiers, or maybe it's just an inevitable side effect of the fact that men are speaking from a place of relative privilege? I think to some extent it's just human nature to be annoyed when the guy winning the game by 20 points is calling foul.
I dunno. I'm pretty sure I'd be okay saying "The bias toward mothers in child custody arrangements is problematic and I think it should change" without the qualifier, in a different context. But in the context of discussing MRA in general, I think you're right - there's enough crap and bad will out there to make it pretty difficult.
I don't have a problem personally, or even see one generally, with needing the qualifiers in a broader discussion where good will hasn't been established. You never know when Clive is going to rear his head again, after all.
But surely there is a point at which it's alright for Lyrhawn or someone else to ask, "Can we accept as given that I'm not lamenting the 'women as chattel' days of the past, please?" Not only is it actually constructive, since he obviously is not doing so and diverting a discussion into what is already known to be irrelevant is just a waste of time, but it's also if it happens enough times a pretty clear attack and insult.
My bias chips on the table: something similar happened to me a week or two ago, it might even have been in this thread, I'm on my phone now so I'll look later. But I had to explain more than once and even more than three or four times that, no, in fact I don't think that racial minorities in general and African Americans in particular are advantaged or empowered by American society. Some very specific, very contextual statements were-repeatedly-applied to a broader context that I specifically rejected, and that frankly I think anyone familiar with my thoughts would know was I was very unlikely to hold to anyway.
I suspect Lyrhawn's frustration stems from a similar source, not least because he had to do the same thing as well.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I wasn't implying that Lyrhawn (or anyone here other than Clive) was suggesting anything of the kind. In fact, I implied the opposite. I don't think that (again, other than Clive) you will find that here. I am saying that those are the arguments that the MRA groups are making. Because that is really what has changed for men. I is a real change and really does make things worse for them.
So when, in direct response to Lyrhawn, you posted that 'I hope that...' and you stated that you weren't going to be shedding any tears for...that direct response to Lyrhawn wasn't, I guess? You were simply responding to an opinion that wasn't being offered anyway? Lyrhawn wasn't asking that you shed tears for the lot of men in America. No one was, in fact.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
She's allowed to post something without addressing it to someone who recently posted, of course. I think she already clarified it sufficiently! Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was responding to the conversation in general. The "you" was general. In general, the complaint of the men in the MRA/PUA and so forth groups that is actually true, is about the fact that they women are no longer "equally distributed". And they are right about that. It is harder for unappealing or unworthy men to get sex.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's because MRAs function like hate groups.
Cracked had a decent article on this recently. The argument is that the group is made up of men who are insecure and take their anger out on women as a scapegoat. In point number 3, they argue that MRAs, if they were truly a male welfare group as opposed to an anti-women movement, they would be VERY concerned with the problems of black men and gay men. But they're not.
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
I won't hesitate to argue passionately against unfair child support and custody laws. You can search the forum for my complete position on that, but I mainly see them as a relic of a more sexist era where they were necessary to compensate for a woman's (then) inability to provide for herself, and that maintaining them entrenches and reinforces sexism and gender inequality in general.
I'm also opposed to men being blamed or assigned responsibility for women feeling uncomfortable being around/speaking to them, not because of anything they did, but because they're men and that's their fault. I can understand feeling nervous or uncomfortable, it's a natural reaction, but to get angry at someone for getting in the same elevator as you, or even politely saying hello to you (yes, there was a blog about this) is absurd. These are normal, socially acceptable behaviors, and I don't think men need to go out of their way to avoid accidentally making someone uncomfortable. (Just like I'd never dream of telling a girl to put on more clothes because she's making a man uncomfortable)
This one may be because I'm a big, tall, muscular man, and I've gotten tired of constantly cracking jokes and trying to put people (male and female) at ease because their first reaction to meeting me is being startled, or murmuring and generally acting skittish. Despite this, I've never had any man (even the ones smaller than most women) complain about it in any way, but I've had several women complain about me being too big and intimidating. (despite not doing anything beyond smiling, saying hi and shaking their hand or whatever) I suppose this is why I'm also pretty defensive of black men, since they seem to have the same problem, only much worse.
But anyway, despite the fact I think there are certain ways our society mistreats men, I couldn't really classify myself as a MRA. I don't think there is any sort of systematic oppression of men, and honestly, most of the issues we do run into are symptoms of sexism against women. The realization of gender equality should (hopefully) make those issues no longer problematic.
I do think there are some issues that are unique to men, and aren't really caused or greatly affected by men's relationships with women. Most of these stem from rather narrow definitions of masculinity, and extreme prejudice and mockery of men who deviate from them. I certainly think there should be more awareness of these issues, but I think presenting them in a manner analogous to a civil rights movement is... not the brightest idea. Especially considering the believes and activities of most of the MRA community.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I wasn't implying that Lyrhawn (or anyone here other than Clive) was suggesting anything of the kind. In fact, I implied the opposite. I don't think that (again, other than Clive) you will find that here. I am saying that those are the arguments that the MRA groups are making. Because that is really what has changed for men. I is a real change and really does make things worse for them.
Can you elaborate on your thoughts here? I have a longer response, but I want to wait until I fully understand what you're saying, especially the part I italicized.
Is it your contention that the only change men have experienced in the last couple decades is reduced access to sex?
Your wording was a bit ambiguous.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
And more generally, not specific to what Kate said, there are a lot of problems facing men that need to be addressed by society at large.
Mental health and sexual abuse issues are dramatically more under reported and under served for men and boys than women and girls. Most of that, I think, is because we've made it a point as a society to have conversations about helping women and girls with these points...but we never took boys and men by the hand and did the same thing, so they've stayed in the dark.
The federal definition of rape until just a couple years ago didn't even include men for pete's sake! We as a society were so blind to sexual assault on men that we didn't even include them in the definition of the word we most commonly use for sexual assault. We've done nothing to address the hundreds of thousands, HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS, of rapes that take place in America's prisons. Yes, that's for men and women, but they tend to suffer differently. Men are more susceptible to repeat assaults over time, and are more likely to be abused by prison staff, they are also more likely to suffer traumatic, severe or brutal assaults than women. Women on the other hand are twice as likely to be sexually assaulted by other inmates.
There's also recent research to suggest that a much, much larger percentage of female on male rape occurs than anyone realizes, as well as other kinds of non-prison rape. Numbers have been spiking in the last few years of reported cases of all kinds of male-victim rape and researchers have concluded the only thing that makes sense is that reporting is up. It's always been a problem, but men have been afraid to report it.
Men and especially boys are also much much less likely to report or seek treatment for mental health issues. Numbers on those who suffer from various problems are way off, but researchers have a hard time making educated guesses because reporting is so bad. For example, there are only a handful of in-patient centers in the country for those who suffer from self-injury problems, and the majority of them are female-only institutions, though experts suggest that the ratio of those afflicted is probably closer to 45-55 Male-Female rather than the 90-10 it's often portrayed as.
Then there's male body issues. Instances of steroids abuse and eating disorders in boys have been spiking like crazy for years. Boys see the same unrealistic images on TV growing up and realize that, like young girls wanting thin waists and huge boobs, they need six pack abs and bulging muscles. So they do terrible things to their bodies in search of a physique that will be genetically impossible for most of them to attain. They're also much more likely to be successful in suicide attempts stemming from body image problems. But this isn't talked about nearly as much as female body issues.
I think it probably does affect girls more...but only because of a bizarre mixed message that boys get from media. They're told they need to be super muscle fit and trim to get the girl and be popular...but they're also told it's okay otherwise because relatively unattractive men get the girl on TV and in movies all the time. And this feeds into what happened with that kid in California. He believed what he saw on TV, that no matter what he'd get the girl, but reality didn't match up to that.
We need to examine what we're teaching boys, because our society at present is severely messing with their heads while not giving much of a crap about fixing their problems once they develop. When those issues boil over and someone gets hurt, we all act confused. "How did this happen?" we ask, as if there aren't 15 issues we already knew about that probably contributed but no one wants to talk about.
None of this has to do with Men's "Rights." That's a stupid way to frame the problem. But it has everything to do with men's issues. We need to fight as a society, men and women alike, to get these issues the same legitimacy as women's issues. At the moment it's not about getting them equal air time. It's about earning a right to both be on the air at all.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: There's also recent research to suggest that a much, much larger percentage of female on male rape occurs than anyone realizes, as well as other kinds of non-prison rape. Numbers have been spiking in the last few years of reported cases of all kinds of male-victim rape and researchers have concluded the only thing that makes sense is that reporting is up. It's always been a problem, but men have been afraid to report it.
Anecdotally, I can say this is true. At my last command, we had a female sexual predator. She was a Staff Sergeant and 25 years old, most of her victims were 18-21. She would basically wait for them to get overly intoxicated (a frequent occurrence for young Marines who don't know their limits/are pressured into binge drinking) and either they would call her, or she would find out when they came back into the barracks. She would bring them back to her house (or sometimes, a hotel room if her husband was around), if necessary coercing them with threats of getting them in trouble (for underage drinking, etc.), and then force herself of them.
My friend was raped by her, and afterwards he was laughed off by the chain of command. I mean, literally laughed off. He became their running joke. Guess how many other young men assaulted by her decided they wanted to report it?
As far as I know, she's never been so much as reprimanded for her behavior. She's still in.
That being said, this is hardly a male-only problem, or even a predominantly male problem. A lot of it has to do with the rape culture in general, and there are still places in the military where women get the same response. (though thankfully, a lot of that has changed in the past few years) But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be addressed.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
And again, the qualifier at the end of your statement.
But I think the difference is that we're having a national conversation about how to help female victims of rape, how they are afraid to report, the terrible response from University/Superior Officers/Police officers when women report sexual crimes. It's an ongoing conversation, but it's a conversation. Hopefully next we can finally get some real traction on solutions to these problems.
For men it's not a conversation yet, and it needs to be.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The qualifier is almost a necessity. I knew if I didn't add it, there's a strong chance I would get bombarded with a bunch of links about the rape crisis in the military, or being asked if I seriously didn't think women didn't have it harder when it comes to rape. I've seen it happen almost every time I've brought the story up before. It's very difficult to get people to understand that saying "men experience this problem" does not mean "women therefore don't experience this problem, or experience it less." It's not like addressing one will take away from the other, but it's hard to convince people of that.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Right, and if you said the, "Not all guys are like that." qualifier that often is met with frustration because you are making the conversation about you. You might think you are trying to to keep things nuanced when either sex is discussed.
So how do we converse? It kind of drives me up the wall when a person talks about racism and says something like, "Unless you're a white cis-male, you've probably felt the sting of racism."
You know what? I do know what it's like to feel the sting of racism. Would you like to hear about it? I thought bigotry is to say, "Because you're this, you must also be that."
If we want to have a conversation about equality, let's talk about everybody having an equal voice now, instead of trying to gauge who did the most talking in the past and make them pay for it. Let's be friends trying to learn from each other, rather than the oppressed and the oppressor.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyrhawn, those are absolutely real problems and should be addressed. my point was that they are not new problems or at least not problems caused by the increasing empowerment of women. Nor are they usually the problems that the MRA groups seem to go on about.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
kmbboots: I don't think anybody disagrees with those two points.
I would say though that the MRAs are to Men's Rights what The Black Panthers were to civil rights for African Americans.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
If we want to have a conversation about equality, let's talk about everybody having an equal voice now, instead of trying to gauge who did the most talking in the past and make them pay for it. Let's be friends trying to learn from each other, rather than the oppressed and the oppressor.
Attempts to correct systematic injustice aren't about making people "pay for" the past. They're attempts to address inequality in the present that is a result of that past.
You can argue about whether particular attempts are effective or even just, but framing it as punishment, as if the purpose was retributive rather than corrective, is missing the point.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Attempts to correct systematic injustice aren't about making people "pay for" the past. They're attempts to address inequality in the present that is a result of that past.
That is the idea, but in practice, in the hands of radical activists who are less interested in reasoning things through than in The Movement, it actually takes the form of punishment more often, in my experience. Plus some very questionable lines of thought about exactly how the past affects the present.
There is also very good scientific data about how women and minorities remain disadvantaged in the present, such as resume studies of hiring discrimination, and these point to very serious problems that still remain to be solved.
But the activists' commitments lead them down problematic paths very often. The "Not all men" and "Yes all women" memes are both very problematic, in my view. Sometimes exceptions to a generalization are important.
Moreover, not all women experience their lives as involving gender-based oppression. This can be labeled as "false consciousness," but that is unfair unless it is backed up with real data showing how wrong they are, objectively, to believe they are not oppressed. Not anecdata, which is generally what the "Yes all women" meme traffics in.
Let me also close with the standard qualifier that I'm aware women have it worse than men.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: If we want to have a conversation about equality, let's talk about everybody having an equal voice now
Then we'd be talking about a nonexistent hypothetical, and the conversation wouldn't be very important.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: If we want to have a conversation about equality, let's talk about everybody having an equal voice now
Then we'd be talking about a nonexistent hypothetical, and the conversation wouldn't be very important.
I think BB meant "everybody having an equal voice now" should be the ideal we aspire to, not that that is the reality.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: kmbboots: I don't think anybody disagrees with those two points.
I would say though that the MRAs are to Men's Rights what The Black Panthers were to civil rights for African Americans.
That's a terrible comparison. Black Panthers were more "militant" but they had legitimate beefs and were sick of waiting in line for a handout. They were done asking for equality, they wanted "Freedom Now."
I think most people don't really understand who the Black Panthers were, what they wanted, and what they did.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, have to agree with that. Though in fairness to BB, that perception of the Black Panthers is extremely common.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
There were radical elements within the Movement that wanted the United States to carve out a country for African-Americans so they could leave America and form their own country, but we're talking about a tiny, tiny fringe group not recognized by the Black Panthers. I think that might be your better comparison, but no one ever took them seriously.
I'm sure it was an honest mistake on BB's part, the public perception of a lot of the Civil Rights era is really not reflective of what happened, ESPECIALLY the groups we tend to think of as radical and militant like the Black Panthers, who the government went through a lot of effort to not just smear, but systematically arrest and murder whenever they got the chance.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know it's not an adequate comparison. I should have spent more time thinking of another one.
I just hate the idea that MRA must mean either,
1: A bunch of misogynists
2: A bunch of men who are in denial about male privilege.
I remember in college we learned about a radical version of feminism among other schools of thought purely as an exercise to understanding the full spectrum of feminism. A lot of conservative commentators love to zero in on the radical schools of thought. Like men not being necessary except as sperm donors.
It would be terrible if we allowed opponents of feminism (and this is already a problem) to make it out to be a movement that seeks to emasculate men.
I've said something similar to this concept before, but I don't want to let the term Men's Rights Advocate become synonymous with "Woman Hater."
Men shouldn't have to be ashamed of wanting to empower their gender. Privilege ironically weakens us because it gives us false expectations that we then try to cling too. It makes us feel cheated and lied to and resentful especially towards the people who break the illusions. But in many real ways men (As others have written here) face real problems as a gender, and privilege doesn't make those problems less serious or critical.
One of the indispensable ways we are going to stop misogyny is by helping men to learn that manliness is treating women well.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: One of the indispensable ways we are going to stop misogyny is by helping men to learn that manliness is treating women well.
I would say rather is by helping people to learn that being a good person is treating other people well. I think separating out the genders the way you have is exactly what fuels misogyny and sexism, and it makes me deeply uncomfortable. I don't want men to treat me well because I'm a woman. I want people to treat me well because I'm human.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't say, "Treat somebody well because they are a woman." I said "Manliness is treating women well". Your goodness towards others does not change at all based on a persons sex or gender.
But part of treating a person well is understanding what their sex or gender is and adapting to that information in a positive way. Mysandry and misogyny don't mean treating the genders differently. It means disliking, hating, or mistreating one or the other or both for those qualities.
At least, that's what I believe.
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: If we want to have a conversation about equality, let's talk about everybody having an equal voice now
Then we'd be talking about a nonexistent hypothetical, and the conversation wouldn't be very important.
I think BB meant "everybody having an equal voice now" should be the ideal we aspire to, not that that is the reality.
And if so, the conversation about the ideal future must regard the non-ideal now. If you are going to go into a discussion about groups who are socially marginalized, and especially if you are going to go into a discussion WITH people who are socially marginalized, the existing extent of that marginalization is part of the conversation. It's part of what you have to factor in. Because marginalization in these fields greatly influences people's tendencies and the power you have to speak over other groups.
The conversations that men often want to have with women about feminism become suspiciously less and less about advancing women out of social marginalizations and tend to go back again and again to men defensively interjecting themselves and their own concerns about themselves. It happens again and again and again and again until anyone who's working as an activist in the field, ~social justice warriooooor~ or no, gets very tired of it. Men putting most of their effort into defending themselves. Shifting the conversation back to "we have it bad too!" and devoting an amazing quantity of time and effort to make sure we are talking about men's 'half' of the patriarchy problem and issues of relatively minor consequence except that they primarily effect men. And, lest we forget, utter lunatics who aggressively direct hatespeech towards women in literally any venue they can espouse it in, and turn it into a discussion not about women's equality, but about misandry and how to get women back into a controlled social role again like things are supposed to be, because biotruths.
Elements of the conversation taking place here are quite the microcosm, quite representative of exactly that. And they teach the same lesson over and over again.
Like I mentioned earlier, the well is poisoned. Absolutely poisoned. The first responsibility of any guy who's otherwise tripping over themselves to assure that they are speaking from being in the position of being One Of The Good Men should, ideally, be to recognize what power they unintentionally hold in these engagements and how to keep that in check if they actually want to talk, with women, about women's issues. The overused and terrible term that bonkers social justice warriors hollered until the term was self-parody was "Check your privilege!!!!" — but expressed more moderately is still the most important recognition to make.
quote:I've said something similar to this concept before, but I don't want to let the term Men's Rights Advocate become synonymous with "Woman Hater."
Whether you want that or not is irrelevant at this point. Men's Rights Advocates have already done so, through their actions. MRA's these days self-select for those who actively want to continue being known and associated with the title, which means most every moderate fled the scene a long time ago when the people directing the movement hurled it into the territory it is now (essentially, as defined and tracked by the SPLC, a hate group).
quote:Mysandry and misogyny don't mean treating the genders differently. It means disliking, hating, or mistreating one or the other or both for those qualities.
A friendly misogynist who likes, individually means well towards, and is polite to women is still a misogynist. You have plenty of people who are like that. Older people, especially, who are big on chivalry and talk very kindly about what kind of respect women are owed, to open doors for them and be extremely polite, and how to treat them like the delicate little flowers they are, and about how God intends for the man to be the head of the household and for women to obey them.
In these and many cases, treating the genders differently IS mistreating women. Just like how Nobody's A Racist and Nobody's A Homophobe, these people soundly object to the notion that they're being misogynistic! After all, they're so polite to women!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by JanitorBlade: I didn't say, "Treat somebody well because they are a woman." I said "Manliness is treating women well". Your goodness towards others does not change at all based on a persons sex or gender.
But part of treating a person well is understanding what their sex or gender is and adapting to that information in a positive way. Mysandry and misogyny don't mean treating the genders differently. It means disliking, hating, or mistreating one or the other or both for those qualities.
At least, that's what I believe.
Could you elaborate? What ways of treating genders differently would you suggest are good? How should we adapt to gender diffefences?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you are going to go into a discussion about groups who are socially marginalized, and especially if you are going to go into a discussion WITH people who are socially marginalized, the existing extent of that marginalization is part of the conversation. It's part of what you have to factor in. Because marginalization in these fields greatly influences people's tendencies and the power you have to speak over other groups.
How do you know this? Or rather, how do you know it’s universally true in all contexts?
There are some cases where it’s pretty obvious that a white dude will have “the power” in the conversation. Two people trying to convince a cop which of them is at fault. But what about if you’re at a lefty political event, or a political discussion on a left-wing blog? Very commonly, both the privileged and the underprivileged person feel like the other one has more power. I think it’s entirely possible that there are situations where recognition of minorities’ weaker standing in broader society, and well-meaning attempts to compensate, give them more of a voice than privileged people have in that situation.
How do you know who has the power in those conversations? Surely not just by asking people for their anecdotal opinions and uncritically accepting the opinions of the women and minorities. I’m not saying I have the answer, but I am saying that the answer a typical activist will give is not well supported by evidence.
quote: The conversations that men often want to have with women about feminism become suspiciously less and less about advancing women out of social marginalizations and tend to go back again and again to men defensively interjecting themselves and their own concerns about themselves. It happens again and again and again and again until anyone who's working as an activist in the field, ~social justice warriooooor~ or no, gets very tired of it. Men putting most of their effort into defending themselves.
I would put it this way. I don’t consider myself an “ally,” because I think a lot of what activists are supposed to believe about identity issues does not hold up to critical scrutiny, and some of it amounts to pop-psychology pseudoscience. People put forward what are at best interesting conjectures as if they were confirmed truth. So I’m not willing to blanket sign on to every platform of that movement, even though I share its goals in every regard and do accept many of its well-confirmed substantive tenets (such as the fact that women and minorities face lots of discrimination in hiring).
Because I’m not an activist, when I have a conversation with a feminist activist my foremost goal is not to use that conversation to advance women, but rather to use it to figure out what views about the subjugation of women are supported by the evidence. So yes, I will object to anything the activist says that doesn’t meet my standards of good evidence or argumentation. Including any overly sweeping generalizations the activist may happen to make.
quote: And, lest we forget, utter lunatics who aggressively direct hatespeech towards women in literally any venue they can espouse it in, and turn it into a discussion not about women's equality, but about misandry and how to get women back into a controlled social role again like things are supposed to be, because biotruths.
I agree, except that I think feminist and anti-racist activists (and their academic counterparts in critical race and feminist theory) are far too quick to dismiss actual evolutionary psychology and sociobiology. This is not to conflate the pseudoscience cited by MRA types with actual behavioral science, mind you!
The rest of what you say, I basically agree with. Especially that the MRA is scum and that even a real, legitimate “men’s rights movement” would be one of the least important social causes, compared with the subjugation of groups which face more severe disadvantages.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think a lot of what activists are supposed to believe about identity issues does not hold up to critical scrutiny, and some of it amounts to pop-psychology pseudoscience. People put forward what are at best interesting conjectures as if they were confirmed truth.
In case it wasn't clear what I meant, here are some examples of claims that many identity politics activists make as if they were known to be true, when they just aren't (they also aren't known to be false):
-Porn is a causal factor in the prevalence of rape -The portrayal of women in a show like Mad Men leads to more oppression of women -What people find attractive in potential mates is almost entirely socially conditioned -Gender differences in sexual behavior, like men being more polyamorous, are entirely due to social conditions
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I agree, except that I think feminist and anti-racist activists (and their academic counterparts in critical race and feminist theory) are far too quick to dismiss actual evolutionary psychology and sociobiology.
I do not disagree with this at all. It's worse than pop-psych. You have a whole group of people for whom the activism or the professional victimhood is the end and the means all in itself, a self-sustaining engine of justification in the 'productivity' of labeling or anger that moves outwards on the privilege continuum.
They are reliably incurious as to the actual full implications of neuroscience; if it suggests even the tiniest marginal undesired hint of deterministic biology for certain groups, it is soundly rejected. By now their appreciation or appropriation of scientific findings is entirely cherrypicked for if it passes a specific ideological test.
In that way they are ironically most operationally similar to wingers on the other side of the spectrum.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
