[Off-Topic] [Edited title] Julia Maddera on Patriarchy

[unavoidablytiger]

Tiger, you just made me tear up a lot more than I expected. Because when I look at the little boy I used to be (very open and friendly, would go up and want to be friends with pretty much anyone), and then look at the man I am and how much repression I do (oft-times without even quite knowing I'm doing it), damn if it doesn't depress me to realize how horribly true that is. The same holds true for some of the few girls I knew and managed to stay in touch with from back then - it's damn depressing to see how guarded they are even with me, who they've known for quite some time and supposedly trust.

...man. It's times like these when teetotalism bites down hard. I suddenly want a drink.

Now I want to give you a hug too.

And I will, because it's the internet and I can do that kind of thing to strange men who make me sad. *HUGS*

[Zanosuke Kurosaki]

Tiger, you just made me tear up a lot more than I expected. Because when I look at the little boy I used to be (very open and friendly, would go up and want to be friends with pretty much anyone), and then look at the man I am and how much repression I do (oft-times without even quite knowing I'm doing it), damn if it doesn't depress me to realize how horribly true that is. The same holds true for some of the few girls I knew and managed to stay in touch with from back then - it's damn depressing to see how guarded they are even with me, who they've known for quite some time and supposedly trust.

...man. It's times like these when teetotalism bites down hard. I suddenly want a drink.

Now I want to give you a hug too.

And I will, because it's the internet and I can do that kind of thing to strange men who make me sad. *HUGS*

Wah! I certainly wasn't lookin' for that, I was just sayin'... *hugs back* Thank you.

[Lia S]

About the text at the origin of this thread. Basically the author is saying that she's getting a lot of sexual and romantic attention that she doesn't want (plus some of these expressions are just nasty, but let's put that aside for a while). How many men think the exact opposite? That they desperately want romantic and sexual attention and aren't getting any? You spoke of your experience, this is mine. Who is better off, the one with a surplus of attention or the one with a complete lack of it? Why can't we just agree that both suck and try to find solutions? Why do we have to be in Oppression Olympics and designate a "winner"... And then blame the "loser" for everything?

There's issue to be taken here. The entitlement is close to painful.

You really don't realize that the problem isn't surplus sexual/romantic attention, do you? The problem is men feeling entitled to do things to the writer without her permission. Full stop.

If you think that the suck of a lack of sexual/romantic attention is in any way comparable to the suck of being afraid that someone is about to assault you, you may need to sit down and re-evaluate a lot of things. There's no Oppression Olympics involved here. One is terror and the other is ennui. Not the same class of problem at all.

After a good night of sleep it seems this was the point where I got "interested" enough to join the discussion. The real issue isn't "women get too much attention, men don't get enough, and that's similarly bad". It's more like this:

Attractive women are objectified and often those doing the objectifying will let it be known. When they're not being objectified, they do get a little more respect than other women.
Attractive men are usually respected, and occasionally objectified.

Average women are usually ignored, and occasionally objectified.
Average men are ignored.

Unattractive women get told they are.
Unattractive men are ignored.

I know I'm generalizing in the comparisons above, but it's a lot more precise than what I'm responding to.

I think it is a privilege not to get told what other people think of your suitability as a living sex toy, etc. I do want that privilege to be taken away, not by asking that men get treated the same way, but by giving the privilege to everyone so it is no longer a privilege.

Also, I think getting objectified a lot of the time no matter where one goes can't really be compared to being denied certain kinds of jobs and seats on airplanes.

Finally, I agree a term like "female unprivilege" or something would help men understand this thing isn't about them. That would save us a lot of "boohoo, this isn't about you" .
EDIT: Actually, that's not a good idea, because (1) not everyone who is not male is female and (2) there's nothing wrong with having a privilege one didn't ask for, as long as one doesn't try to prevent others from getting the same - someone who feels attacked when told (s)he has a privilege is just being silly.

[Bardlp]

After a good night of sleep it seems this was the point where I got "interested" enough to join the discussion. The real issue isn't "women get too much attention, men don't get enough, and that's similarly bad". It's more like this:

Attractive women are objectified and often those doing the objectifying will let it be known. When they're not being objectified, they do get a little more respect than other women.
Attractive men are usually respected, and occasionally objectified.

Average women are usually ignored, and occasionally objectified.
Average men are ignored.

Unattractive women get told they are.
Unattractive men are ignored.

[...]

Also, I think getting objectified a lot of the time no matter where one goes can't really be compared to being denied certain kinds of jobs and seats on airplanes.

Yeah. I can get onboard with that. Most of my lady friends are in the sort-of-traditionally-attractive to not-traditionally-attractive range. It wasn't until I was downtown with one of my coworkers (who is pretty much the paragon of our culture's idea of pretty) and I noticed an actual trenchcoat masturbater staring at her that I realized just how brazen the objectification gets. I'm not sure how she felt about it, though. She seemed ... happy(?) about it. It was strange.

[Trefle]

There are several examples like this. When a woman hits a man, no one offers the man sympathy. Same with female-on-male rape. The men are being treated incredibly unfairly-- they're being hurt and told that it's their own fault for being "too weak" to fight off a woman. This is also insulting to women because we're being told that we're too weak to hurt men. (Now, obviously, men have it worse in this situation, but the fact is that it's hurting both of us.)

There are privileges. Humans are wired to be unable to see their own advantages, which is why it's easier for me, as a woman, to say things like, "FUCK, Kchoze has it so easy! He doesn't have to constantly be judged for his looks!" Whereas you, being a man, have an easy time saying, "FUCK, Valerie has it so easy! She can like pink/ponies/rainbows/ribbons/other feminine things without being called gay!" The grass is always greener on the other side.

But where we get lost on the issue is when we argue about who has it worse. Why should we care who has it worse? Why would that fix anything? I feel that women have it worse, but saying so isn't going to solve the problem. All we need to do, collectively, as a society, is say, "Hey, how come men/women are treated differently in this specific area? That's dumb, let's start treating them the same way."

If you think that the suck of a lack of sexual/romantic attention is in any way comparable to the suck of being afraid that someone is about to assault you, you may need to sit down and re-evaluate a lot of things. There's no Oppression Olympics involved here. One is terror and the other is ennui. Not the same class of problem at all.

Now, you could argue that some or even most of the come-ons were simply ignorant attempts at being flirty and not really intended to be threatening, but I'd disagree with you. Being a target changes your perspective from one of "I'm invulnerableman, yay!" to one of constantly being on alert. All women are made into targets some time in their lives. And if they're successfully victimized, much of the time, the people around them turn around and blame them for it.

Beautiful; Valerie, Bardlp. Thank you for shedding further perspectives on this whole matter. <3
Within one identity there's so many dimensions related; one is better, another is worse. The differences in our position will alter our perception; what we see and how we're taking the information. The cores of certain unfairness and sufferings are different; not to mention the traits that made the cage. And yes, the grass is always greener. We all suffer in some way or another; I think we all agree that what need to be done is to find the better way; to eliminate the discrimination in one way or another?

Then somewhere in there, horrible things must happen to them, because it is damn rare that you see a man who can openly show his emotions without being ridiculed, even by the people he loves and trusts, because that's not how society raised us. And he'll take it and say it's his fault, and suck it up, and then when we women complain about our gender expectations we had better damned well be willing to suck it up too because he gave up a piece of his soul to be the man society expects him to be.

It's ridiculous and horrifying to me. And stupid.

Yes. It's a sad thing. It's like, 'I've paid my price, why aren't you? YOU DO IT TOO, WOMEN'. It's sad. It's stupid. Worst of all, it's somehow-- humane. Misery loves company?
*hugs Tiger* *hugs Zanosuke*...*hugs everyone, who probably have this sort of discrimination; whether consciously or not, openly or not, painful or not*
Actually, I'll go farther and say that expressing emotions is in some way, more open for ridicule no matter you're male or female (although yes, males get it worse. Far, far worse.)

Like Artemisia said; change is indeed, slow. Because it's HARD to change what we've been taught since life. Because it's hard, painful, confusing, terrifying; to go to an open, sometimes even violent world...without anything. Worse, after breaking our pillar of support.

[Hexr]

Yep, basically, they did a study to tell us all what we already knew.

It is horrible how society treats us. The problem is that change is slow in coming.

Actually, I'd rather say they did a study to prove what we already knew.

Also, Zanosuke, I think I know that feeling. I don't think it essentially helps, but you're definitely not alone.

[Louisa]

Finally, I agree a term like "female unprivilege" or something would help men understand this thing isn't about them. That would save us a lot of "boohoo, this isn't about you" .
EDIT: Actually, that's not a good idea, because (1) not everyone who is not male is female and (2) there's nothing wrong with having a privilege one didn't ask for, as long as one doesn't try to prevent others from getting the same - someone who feels attacked when told (s)he has a privilege is just being silly.

I'd like to add that males aren't the only ones with privilege. I might be female, but I'm still privileged like whoa when it comes to certain areas of my life: I'm able-bodied, white and cisgendered, to name a few. And even when I'm talking about the things that are harder for me based on my gender, I don't want to forget all the privilege I do have. Not because I think that my rights as an able-bodied white cisperson should be taken away from me, but because I don't think those rights should be conditional on being able-bodied, white and/or cisgendered. And if I do want to help extend the rights that I currently enjoy, a logical first step is to figure out which of my rights and privileges aren't yet universal.

[Zanosuke Kurosaki]

Actually, it really does help, Hexr. So thanks, buddy.

[Freemage]

To the women on this board: If you want to skip this post down to the asterisk line, feel free; you know what life is like, already, so you don't need the education.

Alright, Kchoze, let's address this:

About the text at the origin of this thread. Basically the author is saying that she's getting a lot of sexual and romantic attention that she doesn't want (plus some of these expressions are just nasty, but let's put that aside for a while). How many men think the exact opposite? That they desperately want romantic and sexual attention and aren't getting any? You spoke of your experience, this is mine. Who is better off, the one with a surplus of attention or the one with a complete lack of it?

This is not what the writer was talking about. Did you actually read the examples given?

I want you to imagine the following:

For starters, we're going to cuff your hands behind your back. Now, every woman in the world is going to be given a large baseball bat with nails in it, that they carry around all day, every day. Furthermore, the cops will respond to complaints about getting hit with those bats by asking what you did to deserve it. And if you shouldn't have maybe been wearing a cup, or at least thicker pants. And really, shouldn't you have stayed home instead of going out to that club? Or maybe stuck with your friends instead of going back to that girl's room alone where she could get a better swing at you without being interrupted? Or kept yourself from drinking so your defenses wouldn't have been down?

And are you sure, for that matter, that you didn't ASK to have that bat swung, not in a figurative sense, but in the literal sense of the word "Ask"--are you sure you didn't tell her it was alright to swing, because that's what SHE said happened, and since none of us were there, it's hard to know the truth. And of course, some women will tap you with a spike, almost gently, and then tell you that if you just spread your legs, they'll use the handle-end with no sharp bits instead, but of course then it really is gonna look like you wanted it and just changed your mind afterwards, but isn't that better than getting the nail-end?

Oh, and there'll be lots of comedies and jokes based around women who wind up like they're going to swing and then don't, or who just casually tap your crotch with one of the nails, just to make the point that they have the ability to do so, and that there's not really jack shit you can do about it until afterwards, if you can get the cops to believe you, that is? And if you complain, you'll just be called a humorless shit who can't take a joke, and maybe you just need a woman to give you a real shot to the sac so you can get the difference?

Also, if you file charges anyway? Then you'll have to hear from everyone about how that girl is such a great gal, and you should've made it more obvious that you didn't want to get hit with a bat. And that really, she is probably sorry, and you should just drop the charges because otherwise you might ruin her life.

Now, the vast majority of women, obviously, would never even THINK of swinging that bat. But the small group who do get away with it, a lot. So much so that somewhere between 1-in-6 and 1-in-3 men (it's hard to get good numbers, because a lot of men just don't report it, because of the way they get treated) get hit with a bat least once.

That's what a world where 'female privilege' is a thing would be like, Kchoze. It'd be a world where you can never, EVER be certain that at any moment, a stranger, a friend, a family member is going to haul off with a spiked bat and crush you in the nuts, AND GET AWAY WITH IT, and maybe even get you blamed for letting it happen. And if it sounds ridiculous, then you'll understand why it really is "male privilege" pretty much exclusively.

**********************************

BTW, folks, you've all been giving Kchoze's point re: father's rights and bogus pedophile concerns too much credit. It's a standard distraction technique for Men's Rights Activists to whip out that, or ask about male prison rape, or one of the other handful of issues that would, in fact, be vastly IMPROVED by a more feminist society--but they use that as a way to derail the discussion, usually as a means to avoid actually addressing a valid and otherwise infallible point about male privilege.

[NobodySpecial]

All I know is.

And I know it's not a valid point.

When you start discussing privilege.

And I'm here in my situation.

I don't feel very privileged at all.

[Trefle]

Freemage : That's an interesting analogy. Yes, it fits a lot.

BTW, folks, you've all been giving Kchoze's point re: father's rights and bogus pedophile concerns too much credit. It's a standard distraction technique for Men's Rights Activists to whip out that, or ask about male prison rape, or one of the other handful of issues that would, in fact, be vastly IMPROVED by a more feminist society--but they use that as a way to derail the discussion, usually as a means to avoid actually addressing a valid and otherwise infallible point about male privilege.

Not sure about this, though; can you explain more, and which point of Kchoze's point addressed that? (the bogus pedophile concerns, mainly)?

I'm quite sure we're playing with rhetoric and diversion and derailing around this topic....I'm still not really sure how and where.
Does the fact that it's a derailing lessen the impact? No, but it tend to be an unrelated problem (a.k.a the usual 'just because A exists, doesn't mean B doesn't exist' )....but then..hmm.

/re-enlightened

[Lia S]

I don't tend to think of rape when discussing male privilege, maybe because once you include that everything else seems unimportant. But of course it is correct to include it, and being much less likely to be raped makes male privilege so huge one might almost say it is the only kind of privilege there is (that is, female privilege doesn't really exist when thinking that way).

[Freemage]

Freemage : That's an interesting analogy. Yes, it fits a lot.

BTW, folks, you've all been giving Kchoze's point re: father's rights and bogus pedophile concerns too much credit. It's a standard distraction technique for Men's Rights Activists to whip out that, or ask about male prison rape, or one of the other handful of issues that would, in fact, be vastly IMPROVED by a more feminist society--but they use that as a way to derail the discussion, usually as a means to avoid actually addressing a valid and otherwise infallible point about male privilege.

Not sure about this, though; can you explain more, and which point of Kchoze's point addressed that? (the bogus pedophile concerns, mainly)?

I'm quite sure we're playing with rhetoric and diversion and derailing around this topic....I'm still not really sure how and where.
Does the fact that it's a derailing lessen the impact? No, but it tend to be an unrelated problem (a.k.a the usual 'just because A exists, doesn't mean B doesn't exist' )....but then..hmm.

/re-enlightened

Okay, Kchoze basically brought up the fact that men are often viewed with suspicion or derision when they take on traditional women's roles--his primary example was that men who seek to become teachers, particularly of young children, are viewed by some folks as likely pedophiles. The notion that this somehow undoes the overall concept of male privilege, though, is absurd--it very clearly happens because the man is viewed as demeaning himself by taking on an 'unmanly' role, and therefore must have ulterior motives for doing so. (It amused me that Kchoze included a reference to that fact in his post in a derisive fashion, clearly hoping to poison the well, even though he utterly failed to actually make an argument against it.)

It's a de-rail attempt because arguing that yes, male privilege and the patriarchy hurts many men, too, does not undermine the cause of feminism--but it's being used to create a disruption in a discussion about feminism. And yes, the de-rail attempt needs to be identified and called out as such, precisely because it's an effort to cause the discussion itself to stop entirely.

For anyone wanting a guided tour of the Men's Rights Movement, and just how fucked in the head these folks really are, should go check out the Manboobz website. Do NOT go if you are in any way, shape or form subject to triggering--the author of the site quotes extensively from some of the worst pond-scum out there, and it very frequently is difficult to read even if you have no such susceptibility at all. (To give you an idea of how rough it can get--I'm not linking directly to it. If you are genuinely curious, Google "Manboobz" and go from there.)

[Artemisia]

For anyone wanting a guided tour of the Men's Rights Movement, and just how fucked in the head these folks really are, should go check out the Manboobz website. Do NOT go if you are in any way, shape or form subject to triggering--the author of the site quotes extensively from some of the worst pond-scum out there, and it very frequently is difficult to read even if you have no such susceptibility at all. (To give you an idea of how rough it can get--I'm not linking directly to it. If you are genuinely curious, Google "Manboobz" and go from there.)

Should I ask which kind of triggering. . .but then again, I should probably not know. Just talking to Kchoz was a bad enough trigger for me.

[Freemage]

For anyone wanting a guided tour of the Men's Rights Movement, and just how fucked in the head these folks really are, should go check out the Manboobz website. Do NOT go if you are in any way, shape or form subject to triggering--the author of the site quotes extensively from some of the worst pond-scum out there, and it very frequently is difficult to read even if you have no such susceptibility at all. (To give you an idea of how rough it can get--I'm not linking directly to it. If you are genuinely curious, Google "Manboobz" and go from there.)

Should I ask which kind of triggering. . .but then again, I should probably not know. Just talking to Kchoz was a bad enough trigger for me.

It's almost safe to assume that if it's a trigger, one of the MRAs will hit it in some of the quoted passages.