Are Women Oppressed in the West?

[New Edom]

I know.

You know what they say.

Also I'm okay to discuss destructive male behavior, this thing exists, but first we eject feminists from the discussion as they are confusing the issue, and I definitely am not interested in a feminist input into that serious matter.

Contrary to what feminists generally say, destructive male behaviour has more often than not ben the focus of laws in traditional and historical societies. So it's not like anything has changed in that regard--except now we have a largely woman focused disapproval that can't seem to distinguish criminal behaviour from things that are just irritating, annoying or offensive but aren't criminal. Furthermore nearly all feminists with rare exceptions refuse to discuss or deal with destructive female behaviour and constantly suggest that even if it does exist it's men's fault. So no, I don't see what they contribute to the conversation at all.

[Dameth]

So no, I don't see what they contribute to the conversation at all.

The problem with gender issues is not that they are not a topic worth talking about. It definitely is. The problem is it's the claimed territory of hysterics, and we have to take it back before we can do anything with it.

The linked video makes the proposition that destructive male behavior - which is more destructive to men than it is to women - exists in a context where violence is a bargaining chip for sex access, a trade whose rules are made by women exclusively. Violent hypermasculine men are sought after, and that behavior is made to happen, not because men particulary enjoy beating the shit out of each other, but because they know at a subconscient level that it will get them laid.

I'd like non-feminist input on that. Also please disregard the adult language in the video.

[Jello Biafra]

I don't believe anyone is naturally altruistic. What people are born naturally is social, for the most part, which is different. Being sociable is necessary because we are group oriented organisms that require others of the same species to survive and prosper. Altruism is really a form of social bonding that can be very effective or very negative depending on the context.

I suppose if your position is that humans are not naturally altruistic then it would follow tautologically that neither women nor men are natrually altruistic. Nonetheless, women are somewhere between slightly more and moderately more altruistic than men are on most of the measures that the study measured, according to that study.

And let me guess: there's going to be a concern about how men treat women in that article you inked. Let's see if my magical 8 ball works. And wow, am I ever good at this! It's about how fathers need to be good to their daughters. Nothing about women actually taking responsibility for making sure that they support good fathers in their daughters' lives though or how they can go about that. So really, it's just another article making men responsible for women.

So then you want something about a woman encouraging male contact with children, but her motives can't for the good of either the woman or the child? Hm.
This article says that stepfathers are more likely to keep in touch with stepchildren after a divorce than stepmothers are. Surely the mothers of these children aren't all allowing the contact to occur because of selfish reasons?

[Jello Biafra]

Sure. As you pointed out in this thread, most people, and indeed, most women are not feminists.

As a side note (not an attack on you, but an observation): this is why it's so irritating when many feminists equate feminism with women and draw the conclusion that anti- and/or nonfeminists are anti-women.

Well, in some cases they are, and in some cases they aren't.

The difference is that Gaboury is not a researcher into gender issues, nor an adviser of supposedly neutral government statistics organizations. So where Koss uses her power to advance a false narrative about the lack of sexual violence against men and the lack of damage of sexual violence against men, Gaboury is not in any significant way countering that and pushing the feminist movement in the right direction.

Your statement is like arguing that there are Golden Dawn members who are not beating up immigrants, who deserve to be taken just as seriously as the people who do that. But that's not how it works, as long as the violent members are in control of the movement and the non-violent members are not strongly opposing them, the violent people define the movement. Just like people like Koss define feminism, not Gaboury; because people like Koss have the biggest influence, outside feminism and within.

What would you consider strong opposition to be?

You can't just conclude that because on average women will choose to work fewer hours themselves, female CEOs will let their workers work fewer hours.

Well, I was basing it on the fact that female owners of small businesses work fewer hours than male owners of small businesses, because they have family obligations. I suppose it's technically true that they'd hire other people to do the extra work that they're not doing, but on the other hand it's more likely that they'd understand that other people also have family obligations.

For starters, female CEOs are not average women (same for male CEOs, btw). They are usually outliers: women who work many hours (otherwise you don't get to the top in most cases).

The second issue is that CEOs are often not free agents. They have to make shareholders happy and on their way to the top, people get judged by and promoted based on performance figures. So they have just as much incentive as men to make their employees work more hours.

The third issue is that if they are (subconsciously) sexist (which most people are), it's perfectly possible that they do the same thing as men: allow and encourage women to work fewer hours than men (and disallow and discourage men).

The notion that women in power will magically solve problems is extremely doubtful and IMO, not borne out by the examples we've seen so far.

I don't believe that women in power would magically solve problems, but I think that the more diverse the experiences and viewpoints of the people in power, the more likely the problem is to be solved. The average man will have more experiences in common with other men than with the average woman.

Exactly, so I disagree with people who demand more women in positions of power, rather than better leaders. Yet the mainstream feminist opinion is that the gender of people in power matters.

If you open the pool of potential leader candidates entirely - not just a little bit, but completely - then you have more potential leaders to choose from. The greater the number of leaders, the greater the chances of getting a good leader.

Perhaps so, but feminism isn't even the largest force that's maintaining the status quo.

That depends on where you are. In my country, traditionalist communities have very little national power and merely have substantial power in their own communities (schools & families). So over here, both sides of the culture war pretty much consists of 'progressive' forces. For example, the first anti-immigration party that we had with a lot of support was headed by an openly gay man.[/quote]
So you feel you have women roughly in parity to men, in terms of business and political leaders in the Netherlands?

Anyway, I also take issue with your choice of words. I never claimed that feminism is maintaining the status quo in general. My claim is that they are working for a situation where problems for women get solved, but not for men. But that doesn't mean that they leave men in their status quo, they clearly want to change life for men as well, just for the worse (IMHO).

In general, solving problems for women also means solving problems for men.
Here's an example.

Yes and that makes feminism partially patriarchal. Which makes them part of the problem.

My objection is not that feminism should never have done this, my objection is that this was not just a strategy, but became feminist dogma build on a web of falsehoods. Where we are now, with more legal equality for women than for men, more room for gender non-conformance in women than in men and where the biggest inhibitor of female equality is hypoagency, feminism is an anachronism that does more to limit men AND women than help.

This is why we need to get rid of feminism, not to replace it with traditionalism, but rather with egalitarianism, based on facts rather than dogma.

By "more legal equality for women than for men" are you referring to the prison time study, or are you referring to cases where men are outright discriminated against, within the law itself?

Alimony is inherently unfair. In a traditional family setup, the man provides money, repairs, protection, etc and the woman provides cooking, cleaning, care, etc. Upon divorce, this arrangement is cancelled. Alimony preserves one of the burdens for men that was part of the marriage (providing money) while not preserving any of the obligations for women. So there's no longer a quid pro quo.

Of course, in the past, a decent number of women were educated for a role as housewife, rather than be taught a profession, so an argument could be made that those women couldn't be expected to take on the role of provider and deserve alimony, at least temporarily. However, many older men were never taught to cook, clean, etc as well, so it still seems unfair that men were expected to just manage, but not women.

Anyway, in a modern context where pretty much all women get a good education and learn a trade, I see no reason for alimony.

The way that earning in jobs work, the longer one works - the more work experience they have - the more money they will make. If a wife (in this case) becomes a homemaker, she sacrifices not just current earnings, but a portion of her future earnings as well. As such, alimony for a limited time makes up for those future earnings lost.

I agree, with the caveat that the man should have a completely fair shot at being the custodian or getting childcare duties, which is currently not the case.

If you look at the objections of male rights groups, it's not so much child supports itself that get them riled up, but rather situations where they get no choices, but rather get pushed in an unfair arrangement.

I'm not going to say that the family court system is entirely fair, but to say that people are pushed into arragements is a bit of a stretch.

[Jello Biafra]

destructive male behavior,

Not a bad fantasy story. It was certainly an entertaining one.

[Dameth]

This brillant, insightful yet unexpected comment makes me consider intersectionality with a fresh pair of eyes

[Hirota]

Sure. As you pointed out in this thread, most people, and indeed, most women are not feminists.

As a side note (not an attack on you, but an observation): this is why it's so irritating when many feminists equate feminism with women and draw the conclusion that anti- and/or nonfeminists are anti-women.

I'd go further than that.

Modern feminism increasingly denies individual women agency. It portrays women of being incapable of receiving criticism, of being confronted with perspectives contrary to their worldview. It advocates safe spaces (which generally are thought to do more harm than good). It condemns women who feel empowered enough to believe they don't need feminism to accomplish their aims and objectives. It supplies the narrative that all women are potential victims, it makes women see boogeymen everywhere.

On that basis, I'd argue that modern feminism itself is anti-women.

[Galloism]

I agree, with the caveat that the man should have a completely fair shot at being the custodian or getting childcare duties, which is currently not the case.

If you look at the objections of male rights groups, it's not so much child supports itself that get them riled up, but rather situations where they get no choices, but rather get pushed in an unfair arrangement.

I'm not going to say that the family court system is entirely fair, but to say that people are pushed into arragements is a bit of a stretch.

Ah, gotta love when the privileged class talks down to the oppressed class and tells them that they don't have it very bad.

Let me use the exact words a lawyer told my brother when going through his divorce.

"You're a man living in Missouri. Unless you can prove your wife is a drug dealer or a prostitute, you have no chance of getting any form of custody. The best you can possibly get is frequent visitation. Now, can you prove she was a drug dealer or a prostitute?"

[Chessmistress]

I'm waiting for Chessmistress' response: why should men support feminism?

I have no idea what chessmistress thinks but...

There are probably as many reasons for men to support feminism as there are male feminists.

I suspect you want a "selfish" reason why men should support feminism... I think the most fundamental reason is due to the fact that a society that allows one form of inequality can easily justify another.

An even more simple selfish reason: women not keep down by things like slut shaming and the likes would have more sex.

If you allow a society where women are treated unequally on the basis of gender than you also open yourself up to unequal treatment.

Failing to advocate for gender equality (feminism) means you have little basis upon which to object to being treated unequally yourself in the future.

That would be also very important for men, since they claim there's a worrying gender gap in education and less employement perspectives for men..

[May Mays]

If you allow a society where women are treated unequally on the basis of gender than you also open yourself up to unequal treatment.

Failing to advocate for gender equality (feminism) means you have little basis upon which to object to being treated unequally yourself in the future.

That would be also very important for men, since they claim there's a worrying gender gap in education and less employement perspectives for men..

Well the difference is the education gap is institutionalized.

There's very little anybody can do about somebody's prejudices if they have no direct effect on the government.

[New Edom]

I have no idea what chessmistress thinks but...

There are probably as many reasons for men to support feminism as there are male feminists.

I suspect you want a "selfish" reason why men should support feminism... I think the most fundamental reason is due to the fact that a society that allows one form of inequality can easily justify another.

An even more simple selfish reason: women not keep down by things like slut shaming and the likes would have more sex.

If you allow a society where women are treated unequally on the basis of gender than you also open yourself up to unequal treatment.

Failing to advocate for gender equality (feminism) means you have little basis upon which to object to being treated unequally yourself in the future.

That would be also very important for men, since they claim there's a worrying gender gap in education and less employement perspectives for men..

Very consistent failure to provide an ethical basis for a reason. There is no ethical basis, because feminism is generally an ideology wthout any ethic other thant his: women are downtrodden so we must support women. That's not actually an ethical basis for a society though--that would place obligations upon all persons, and feminists generallyh presume that women are good and will act well. No thanks. No support. Support for feminism has only led to more hostility towards men.

[Twilight Imperium]

The linked video makes the proposition that destructive male behavior - which is more destructive to men than it is to women - exists in a context where violence is a bargaining chip for sex access, a trade whose rules are made by women exclusively. Violent hypermasculine men are sought after, and that behavior is made to happen, not because men particulary enjoy beating the shit out of each other, but because they know at a subconscient level that it will get them laid.

I'd like non-feminist input on that. Also please disregard the adult language in the video.

Non feminist imput coming right up.

The whole concept of this "super violent macho sex bro" culture that revolves around sex, drugs, and punching people making eyes at your bird is either a near complete or totally complete fabrication. Nobody actually does that on a regular basis. Yes, sometimes people get angry and possessive, and yes, sometimes people like that. But as a default setting? *fart sound*

Furthermore, this bizarre notion that there's this weird Vagina Conspiracy run by women to make men jump through hoops in order to win a Sex Cookie has got to be one of the weirder concepts I've ever read. Believe it or not, women aren't bizarre alien vending machines that open up a hatch when you put a token in. They're people a lot like yourself with motives, desires, preferences, and agency. If you want to get to know one, go talk to one. It's not hard - try starting with "hello". However, many women are not idiots, and can tell when someone just wants to get into their pants - and depending on their goals that day, that might be fine with said woman. That doesn't mean that "omg women control the rules of sex" - it just means that sometimes people are dtf, and sometimes not.

Reducing everything down to whether or not a given action will get someone laid is dehumanizing, insulting, and more than a little absurd.

[Galloism]

Non feminist imput coming right up.

The whole concept of this "super violent macho sex bro" culture that revolves around sex, drugs, and punching people making eyes at your bird is either a near complete or totally complete fabrication. Nobody actually does that on a regular basis. Yes, sometimes people get angry and possessive, and yes, sometimes people like that. But as a default setting? *fart sound*

Furthermore, this bizarre notion that there's this weird Vagina Conspiracy run by women to make men jump through hoops in order to win a Sex Cookie has got to be one of the weirder concepts I've ever read. Believe it or not, women aren't bizarre alien vending machines that open up a hatch when you put a token in. They're people a lot like yourself with motives, desires, preferences, and agency. If you want to get to know one, go talk to one. It's not hard - try starting with "hello". However, many women are not idiots, and can tell when someone just wants to get into their pants - and depending on their goals that day, that might be fine with said woman. That doesn't mean that "omg women control the rules of sex" - it just means that sometimes people are dtf, and sometimes not.

Reducing everything down to whether or not a given action will get someone laid is dehumanizing, insulting, and more than a little absurd.

Well, and there's the near universal fact that women and only women have the effective legal right to say no to sex. Technically, in the law, men have that right, but it's very rarely ever prosecuted when that right is violated.

Men who do dare to bring rape charges against a woman are often laughed at by police, or, even worse, charged themselves - with wasting police time.

This is not unusual.

Feminists in Israel and India try to then twist the narrative that any man who would dare report a woman for raping him is probably just trying to cover up the fact that he raped her. This is absurd, illogical, and monstrous.

[Aapje]

What would you consider strong opposition to be?

Not being silent when people like Koss say that men cannot be raped by women (she doesn't even call it sexual assault, but 'unwanted contact,' truly vile).

Not being silent when men's groups at universities are being petitioned against, protested against, their talks disrupted by noise makers, bombs threats, etc.

And in general either work to build a movement that is inclusive to men, in ideology and in behavior; or declare yourself to be WRA's and be honest that you don't work for men and then share the stage with people who do so.

Well, I was basing it on the fact that female owners of small businesses work fewer hours than male owners of small businesses, because they have family obligations. I suppose it's technically true that they'd hire other people to do the extra work that they're not doing, but on the other hand it's more likely that they'd understand that other people also have family obligations.

I think that this is highly simplistic.

Again, the fact that these women feel empowered to work fewer hours (or are unable to work more) in no way means that they will automatically allow men in their employ to do so.

I don't believe that women in power would magically solve problems, but I think that the more diverse the experiences and viewpoints of the people in power, the more likely the problem is to be solved.

The problem I have with that statement is that you can have a mixed gender group that is way less diverse than a single gender group.

A group of men and women picked up from a Democratic convention will be less diverse than if you take some men from that convention and some men from a Republican convention.

The average man will have more experiences in common with other men than with the average woman.

The average female CEO will have more experiences in common with male CEOs than with a female McDonalds employee, especially the things that actually matter for how she treats her employees.

I find the feminist idea that gender results in much more significant average differences than class, culture, etc; to be very, very unrealistic.

If you open the pool of potential leader candidates entirely - not just a little bit, but completely - then you have more potential leaders to choose from. The greater the number of leaders, the greater the chances of getting a good leader.

If many women self-select themselves out of contention by making choices that are not acceptable for CEOs, but companies are forced into diversity, then companies will give preference to a very small number of women who do make choices that are compatible with becoming a CEO, but are on average of poorer quality than the men who are compatible.

Then the quality of leaders goes down, not up.

So you feel you have women roughly in parity to men, in terms of business and political leaders in the Netherlands?

No, because we have culture where women seek a strongly balanced life (between work and family), while men don't. You don't become a leader unless you accept living for work, to a very large extent.

You can just as easily argue that men are worse off in this scenario, since they (on average) get the less diverse life.

In general, solving problems for women also means solving problems for men.

That is not true in general, it is only true in some situations. In other situations, helping women hurts men (more specifically, feminists often choose methods to help women that harm men).

By "more legal equality for women than for men" are you referring to the prison time study, or are you referring to cases where men are outright discriminated against, within the law itself?

The latter.

The way that earning in jobs work, the longer one works - the more work experience they have - the more money they will make.

The longer one cares, the stronger the bond with the child. Men who provide will have a weaker bond with their children. So do the courts arrange it so that the less involved parents gets more time with the child to strengthen this bond? No, the opposite.

Choices have consequences, for men and for women. The difference is that men who provide get and/or no support to deal with the downsides of those choices, while women do/did.

This is unfair.

I'm not going to say that the family court system is entirely fair, but to say that people are pushed into arrangements is a bit of a stretch.

When men don't get a choice for shared parenting, despite there being no objective reasons why they can't do the required things, they are pushed into an unfair arrangement (if one assumed that both parents have equal rights).

[Aapje]

Furthermore, this bizarre notion that there's this weird Vagina Conspiracy run by women to make men jump through hoops in order to win a Sex Cookie has got to be one of the weirder concepts I've ever read.

It's a rather obvious truth that very few women approach men, leaving the burden on men to woo women, rather than the other way around. The data from dating sites shows the same, with cold hard statistics.

It's not a conspiracy, it's gender roles.

[Twilight Imperium]

It's a rather obvious truth that very few women approach men, leaving the burden on men to woo women, rather than the other way around. The data from dating sites shows the same, with cold hard statistics.

It's not a conspiracy, it's gender roles.

Sure, but there's no particular reason a woman couldn't. It's custom, not law, and we've been getting better about it. What weird me out is the .. iunno, transationalism of the worldview espoused above. Men perform action A in front of woman B who responds with access to orifice C. That's just not how people work. (Except hookers, in which case it's sort of exactly how they work).

[Dameth]

Aight. I'm not going all hussard on this one because I think it's a topic worth talking about and I'm totally open to being wrong here, as long as the critic doesn't come from someone trying to push an agenda.
Let's go.

But as a default setting? *fart sound*

Violence plays a role in men to men interractions. Sure, it doesn't happen everyday, but it happens and should be open to inspection.

The inspection might not be correct - in this video, it comes from someone just having been jumped, hence you can understand the angry tone. But I've been jumped too, and I'd like to develop a understanding of male on male violence that does not revolve around "toxic masculinity", if you get my drift.

Furthermore, this bizarre notion that there's this weird Vagina Conspiracy run by women to make men jump through hoops in order to win a Sex Cookie has got to be one of the weirder concepts I've ever read.

This is psychoanalysis 1.0.1., basic freudian explanation for the drive of men to create civilization. Def not a new concept. While Im open to admit there are other factors at play, this one is most probably among them. Are we on the same page or does this needs to be discussed ?

Believe it or not, women aren't bizarre alien vending machines that open up a hatch when you put a token in.

Look, I'm not displaying an essay on my sex life here. I've had the women I wanted and my opposition to feminism is unrelated to that. The reason I'm not asking feminists is because somewhat I expect nonfems to have an open mind about attemptsto investigate gender issues from outside the box. (And -well- I know feminism's position on that and we don't need to debunk that crap for the xth time)

Yes, women are different from one another - but believing this erases any kind of gender dynamic in the wester world is absurd. Besides, I do believe that gender dynamics can and should be investigated.

Reducing everything down to whether or not a given action will get someone laid is dehumanizing, insulting, and more than a little absurd.

This is definitely not the full picture, but this is definitely part of it.
I'm not trying to insult anyone here and I do hope we're adult enough to have an open discussion on that. You're fine, mate.

[Twilight Imperium]

Aight. I'm not going all hussard on this one because I think it's a topic worth talking about and I'm totally open to being wrong here, as long as the critic doesn't come from someone trying to push an agenda.

Cool. I have no agenda other than an actual discussion here. Let's indeed mosey.

Violence plays a role in men to men interractions. Sure, it doesn't happen everyday, but it happens and should be open to inspection.

The inspection might not be correct - in this video, it comes from someone just having been jumped, hence you can understand the angry tone. But I've been jumped too, and I'd like to develop a understanding of male on male violence that does not revolve around "toxic masculinity", if you get my drift.

I think that people having beefs with each other and beating each other up doesn't have to be a "toxic masculinity" thing so much as a "people always have beefs with each other and beat each other up" thing. When nations do it, we call it war. When it happens with a bunch of people on one person on the street, it's getting jumped. I don't mean to come off all smarmy here, I'm just saying sometimes dudes just hate your face and decide to hit it.

(also it happens to women too, though I have no data on woman/man or man/woman)

This is psychoanalysis 1.0.1., basic freudian explanation for the drive of men to create civilization. Def not a new concept. While Im open to admit there are other factors at play, this one is most probably among them. Are we on the same page or does this needs to be discussed ?

We probably should discuss this a bit - Freud's theories haven't been mainstream in psychological thought in decades, in large part (iirc) because they're oversimplified and focus too much on sex as a motivator. As the man himself said, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Look, I'm not displaying an essay on my sex life here. I've had the women I wanted and my opposition to feminism is unrelated to that. The reason I'm not asking feminists is because somewhat I expect nonfems to have an open mind about attemptsto investigate gender issues from outside the box. (And -well- I know feminism's position on that and we don't need to debunk that crap for the xth time)

Yes, women are different from one another - but believing this erases any kind of gender dynamic in the wester world is absurd. Besides, I do believe that gender dynamics can and should be investigated.

Oh, I definitely agree - and I was probably more accusatory than I meant to be before. There definitely is a school of thought like the one I described, and popular consensus has it living mainly on Reddit.

Aside from that though, there's definitely some interesting things to be found in challenging and examining modern gender roles, and doubly so how they do and should interact. What I was mostly countering (and am specifically disagreeing with) is that men and women are inherently different enough that such roles are inevitable. To argue that our culture currently and historically behaves otherwise though would be sort of silly.

This is definitely not the full picture, but this is definitely part of it.
I'm not trying to insult anyone here and I do hope we're adult enough to have an open discussion on that. You're fine, mate.

Sure, the stereotype of the non-feminist as some sort of perpetually-alone woman hater is probably ultimately as destructive as the one of the feminist as a castration-happy obese harpy. Neither one really helps anything and proliferates the weirdly sexually charged tone that the whole issue has, that I'm trying to undermine.

[Dameth]

Cool. I have no agenda other than an actual discussion here. Let's indeed mosey.

Thanks. I'm usually an unsufferable cunt, but that issue is one I do care about. I hope you understand I talked to feminism for a long time, was a "feminist ally" for some four years, and tried afterward, at multiple occasions, to have honnest talks with them. You just can't. At some point you just stop caring and want to have a conversation with people with which you can actually share ideas and inquisit those issues seriously and not being shut down the second you go off dogma.

I think that people having beefs with each other and beating each other up doesn't have to be a "toxic masculinity" thing so much as a "people always have beefs with each other and beat each other up" thing. When nations do it, we call it war. When it happens with a bunch of people on one person on the street, it's getting jumped. I don't mean to come off all smarmy here, I'm just saying sometimes dudes just hate your face and decide to hit it.

Aight. That's an anecdote, it's not meant for proof of anything, just so you get my drift.
Last time I was jumped myself was the beggining of a true introspective journey to me. Five guys ran to me, one threw a soda can on my face, another one snatch my bag off of me. Next thing I know is me rolling on the grass next to the pedestrian side with all the dudes printing they shoesmarks on my face. And yeah. They gave me my bag back after kicking the living shit out of me.

I went to the police, as I'm supposed to do.

More shit happened after that, until I had the occasion to actually speak to friends of those guys - because I actually wanted to know what happend in their minds. To what I gathered, I was white in a black ghetto, had some cash on me in a place where people lived below the line of poverty, I was an unknown face where everyone else knew each other. In short I was seen as outgroup, and it generated feelings of hostility and competition toward the locals for three years, and that culminated in that event.

After I talked to them man to man, we had no more problems. Beside, it makes sense to me, and understanding the root causes of what makes life miserable for me or for people who suffer from the same thing is ultimately what I intend to do here.

What I want to say is ; those things happen for a reason, and those reasons can be explored, and ultimately can be explained. Using blanket terms like "toxic masculinity" doesn't explain anything, it is intellectually lazy and prevent knowlege from gathering. It leaves issues unresolved and makes life miserable for everyone because you can't make sense of what happens to you.

Nor can you prepare and prevent for the next time - it reduces your experience to nothing, you just get beaten and learn no lesson.

Now on the topic of the video - and I'll be moderate on how I endorse barbarossa (even tho I respect him a lot, I also know he's an angry man who sometimes speaks before thinking).
I think we can agree on the sole reason a man has to frequent a club is to end up getting laid. Guys who want to drink with friends do so at home - and this explanation is the only way you can make economical sense of things like lady's night. In my country, once the quota of men per women is filled in a club, you can't enter anymore if you're a guy.

It is not far fetched, imho, to call those place "matrifocal venues" - people get drunk so they lower their sexual inhibitions, dance together so they can initiate contact while keeping plausible deniability, and if everything goes right they get laid in the next hotel before the night is through. This is the mating ritual of the western human at the era of modernity - similar behaviors can be observed in the animal kingdom.

At no point through this process, tho, the men participating in that rite have any meaningful control over it. It is to their to come to the girl, impress her, and the final choice is hers - as men want sex more than women do. Men court like other male animals court, and sometimes, with inhibition lowered by the consumtion of overpriced alcohol, impressing the girl means destroying the guy next to you.

I state that in purely neutral terms so I can hammer my attitude here is inquisitive and aims at understanding and not blaming.

Stop me if you think I'm off the ground.

We probably should discuss this a bit - Freud's theories haven't been mainstream in psychological thought in decades, in large part (iirc) because they're oversimplified and focus too much on sex as a motivator. As the man himself said, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

That's also a critique I have about freudism. Human like other animals have other motivator than sex - actually, after having read Tchakotine, I do say with him that sex as a motivator comes far after the survival instinct. But I still think it plays a major role in human psyche.
Display of general power (in various forms - wealth, power or reserve of violence) has been and still is how men court women. Acquiring power to display means you have to work, somehow - and channelled correctly this drives creates civilization, furthers science and puts food in everyone's plates.

That's how I see it

Aside from that though, there's definitely some interesting things to be found in challenging and examining modern gender roles, and doubly so how they do and should interact. What I was mostly countering (and am specifically disagreeing with) is that men and women are inherently different enough that such roles are inevitable. To argue that our culture currently and historically behaves otherwise though would be sort of silly.

In the end, I think I subscribe to some form of essencialism. I do believe that when people do not question their instinctual behavior, and left alone to their unquestionned industry, they do operate on autopilot mode, driven by a their natural instincts channeled in a unique way by their modern environment.

I mean - people in Song China behave very differently from people than, let's say, today's France. But they were confronted to widely different issues, had to build society to meet those issues, and this society channels people's natural behavior in their unique ways.
But it doesn't means there is no human nature.

I mean we're evolved creatures, and taken on aggregate level our behavior is still highly relatable the behavior of great apes. Why would it be different for us ?

Altho I'm ready to listen to counterarguments seriously.

Sure, the stereotype of the non-feminist as some sort of perpetually-alone woman hater is probably ultimately as destructive as the one of the feminist as a castration-happy obese harpy. Neither one really helps anything and proliferates the weirdly sexually charged tone that the whole issue has, that I'm trying to undermine.

Ah, this is just me making fun of people I can't discuss with, nothing really important. If the feminists I knew were all looking like Andrea Dworkins, they would certainly not have been successful as they were.

[Twilight Imperium]

Thanks. I'm usually an unsufferable cunt, but that issue is one I do care about. I hope you understand I talked to feminism for a long time, was a "feminist ally" for some four years, and tried afterward, at multiple occasions, to have honnest talks with them. You just can't. At some point you just stop caring and want to have a conversation with people with which you can actually share ideas and inquisit those issues seriously and not being shut down the second you go off dogma.

My experiences with feminists have been more or less the opposite. *shrug* I suppose it might help that they're just friends of mine who are "part of the movement" and not activists or anything, but we're usually pretty chill and reasonable about it. I don't want to do the "dueling anecdotes" thing here, but it does suggest that sometimes people are just fundamentalist about their causes. Most causes have dogmatic adherents, feminism isn't even the loudest these days - just look at any "debate" about religion these days. I can understand not wanting to deal with people like that, but it's also hard for me to understand changing your beliefs just because someone you don't like also holds them. Adolf Hitler was a fan of classic Disney films for Pete's sake

-snip for thread preservation-
What I want to say is ; those things happen for a reason, and those reasons can be explored, and ultimately can be explained. Using blanket terms like "toxic masculinity" doesn't explain anything, it is intellectually lazy and prevent knowlege from gathering. It leaves issues unresolved and makes life miserable for everyone because you can't make sense of what happens to you.

Nor can you prepare and prevent for the next time - it reduces your experience to nothing, you just get beaten and learn no lesson.

We may have been talking past each other a bit here - I completely agree! It's important to be able to unpack the terms you use and use them intelligently, otherwise you're basically just cheerleading. "1! 2! 4! 3! Who wants to smash patriarchy?!"

Exciting, not useful. However, it's also a good thing to have the terms for discussion with people who already know what you're talking about. That's what terms are for - so you don't have to re-explain yourself every time you want to refer to a concept. Toxic masculinity, dudebro culture, douchebaggery - whatever.

-more snips, sorry otherwise these will fill the page eventually-
At no point through this process, tho, the men participating in that rite have any meaningful control over it. It is to their to come to the girl, impress her, and the final choice is hers - as men want sex more than women do. Men court like other male animals court, and sometimes, with inhibition lowered by the consumtion of overpriced alcohol, impressing the girl means destroying the guy next to you.

I state that in purely neutral terms so I can hammer my attitude here is inquisitive and aims at understanding and not blaming.

Stop me if you think I'm off the ground.

No, that's a decent summary of that situation - people typically go clubbing to hook up, and in our culture, it's the dudes who have to peacock around. Where we disagree is the notion that clubbing is indicative of how all (or even most) people deal with each other. Some people go clubbing. I'd wager most do not. Therefore it's not wrong so much as.. I dunno, too narrow? Limited in scope? There are many areas in the world and within American culture where the dynamics are very different, so why focus on one specific type of mating dance?

That's also a critique I have about freudism. Human like other animals have other motivator than sex - actually, after having read Tchakotine, I do say with him that sex as a motivator comes far after the survival instinct. But I still think it plays a major role in human psyche.
Display of general power (in various forms - wealth, power or reserve of violence) has been and still is how men court women. Acquiring power to display means you have to work, somehow - and channelled correctly this drives creates civilization, furthers science and puts food in everyone's plates.

There's a lot of touchy feely points I could make about communication and being attentive, but at the same time it would be sort of naive of me to ignore that individuals with power are basically magnets. The distinction I would make is that people with power tend to get what they want - money, women, expensive food, a harem of Cuban cabana boys, whatever. Seeking power doesn't have to be about sex, it just often results in it because most people want it, and when those people get power, they get what they want. Does that make sense?

-more snips-
I mean - people in Song China behave very differently from people than, let's say, today's France. But they were confronted to widely different issues, had to build society to meet those issues, and this society channels people's natural behavior in their unique ways.
But it doesn't means there is no human nature.

I mean we're evolved creatures, and taken on aggregate level our behavior is still highly relatable the behavior of great apes. Why would it be different for us ?

Altho I'm ready to listen to counterarguments seriously.

You really won't get any argument from me that people as a whole tend not to put enough thought into their actions. Just because we can doesn't mean we do, and that to me is one of the essential tragedies of the human condition. We could be so. Much. MORE. I think a good step would be treating other genders and "races" like we would want to be treated, but maybe that's just me.

Ah, this is just me making fun of people I can't discuss with, nothing really important. If the feminists I knew were all looking like Andrea Dworkins, they would certainly not have been successful as they were.

Lots of people here would scold you for that since it's "not proper debate protocol" and if you did it to people you argued with here, you'd probably get moderated. Me, I don't really care - I know how frustrated arguing with people can get and sometimes you need a creative insult to vent it out (though not on NS please don't ban me today )

[Jello Biafra]

This brillant, insightful yet unexpected comment makes me consider intersectionality with a fresh pair of eyes

Well, come on, it's ridiculous.
"Operate under the assumption that any woman in a bar is a slut" followed shortly after by "when women are allowed complete freedom of sexual expression in society, as they have been today". If women actually had complete freedom of sexual expression in society, there'd be no slut-shaming.
Then there's the part about women wanting men to use violence against men, and they show this by...being attracted to men who use violence against women. Here's what actual psychologists have to say on the subject.
And of course, the part about women liking men to be violent with them, to gauge his willingness to use violence on her behalf, while not considering that many gay men also like men to be violent with them, and many straight men like women to be violent with them. Do these straight men secretly harbor fantasies that their dominatrices will beat up women on their behalf?

I'm not trying to insult anyone here

Since when?

[Jello Biafra]

I'm not going to say that the family court system is entirely fair, but to say that people are pushed into arragements is a bit of a stretch.

Ah, gotta love when the privileged class talks down to the oppressed class and tells them that they don't have it very bad.

Let me use the exact words a lawyer told my brother when going through his divorce.

"You're a man living in Missouri. Unless you can prove your wife is a drug dealer or a prostitute, you have no chance of getting any form of custody. The best you can possibly get is frequent visitation. Now, can you prove she was a drug dealer or a prostitute?"

In general, the post-divorce agreetment will resemble the pre-divorce one. If the wife provided most of the childcare during marriage, then in general the courts will say she should continue to do so. (According to this site, Missouri uses the 'best interest' rule.) If you, like Aapje, think continuing the marital arrangement after divorce is unfair, that's fine, but exactly who is pushing men into having their wives handle most of the childcare during the marriage?
I have no idea of the specifics of your brother's case, so I can't comment on how the best interest standard would apply to him specifically.

[Jello Biafra]

Well the difference is the education gap is institutionalized.

How so?

[Galloism]

Ah, gotta love when the privileged class talks down to the oppressed class and tells them that they don't have it very bad.

Let me use the exact words a lawyer told my brother when going through his divorce.

"You're a man living in Missouri. Unless you can prove your wife is a drug dealer or a prostitute, you have no chance of getting any form of custody. The best you can possibly get is frequent visitation. Now, can you prove she was a drug dealer or a prostitute?"

In general, the post-divorce agreetment will resemble the pre-divorce one. If the wife provided most of the childcare during marriage, then in general the courts will say she should continue to do so. (According to this site, Missouri uses the 'best interest' rule.) If you, like Aapje, think continuing the marital arrangement after divorce is unfair, that's fine, but exactly who is pushing men into having their wives handle most of the childcare during the marriage?

society and employers mostly, who are generally understanding when women take off time for family, but not when men do.

I have no idea of the specifics of your brother's case, so I can't comment on how the best interest standard would apply to him specifically.

that was the very first meeting with the lawyer before the lawyer even knew the specifics of his case. Just being a man is enough in Missouri that you have basically no chance unless it's an extreme case.

Incidentally, he consulted a second lawyer who said essentially the same thing, although he used the words "prove she's an unfit parent" instead.

[Jello Biafra]

Not being silent when people like Koss say that men cannot be raped by women (she doesn't even call it sexual assault, but 'unwanted contact,' truly vile).

Not being silent when men's groups at universities are being petitioned against, protested against, their talks disrupted by noise makers, bombs threats, etc.

And in general either work to build a movement that is inclusive to men, in ideology and in behavior; or declare yourself to be WRA's and be honest that you don't work for men and then share the stage with people who do so.

Is Cathy Young sufficiently critical enough?

I think that this is highly simplistic.

Again, the fact that these women feel empowered to work fewer hours (or are unable to work more) in no way means that they will automatically allow men in their employ to do so.

Automatically, no, but it is more likely to occur.

The problem I have with that statement is that you can have a mixed gender group that is way less diverse than a single gender group.

A group of men and women picked up from a Democratic convention will be less diverse than if you take some men from that convention and some men from a Republican convention.

It is feasible for a mixed-gender group to be less diverse than a single-gender group, but this isn't a very good example of that.

The average female CEO will have more experiences in common with male CEOs than with a female McDonalds employee, especially the things that actually matter for how she treats her employees.

I find the feminist idea that gender results in much more significant average differences than class, culture, etc; to be very, very unrealistic.

There are going to be experiences that nearly all women have, and experiences that nearly all men have. These experiences aren't going to be just limited to biology "getting a period on the subway", "getting an erection in class right before being called to speak in front of the class". I'm not going to say that this will have more of an effect than say, class-based differences, but it is an important consideration.

If many women self-select themselves out of contention by making choices that are not acceptable for CEOs, but companies are forced into diversity, then companies will give preference to a very small number of women who do make choices that are compatible with becoming a CEO, but are on average of poorer quality than the men who are compatible.

Then the quality of leaders goes down, not up.

This article cites studies that suggest that female CEOs are on average, better-educated than male CEOs and have been at the companies they became CEOs of significantly longer than male CEOs. If women only had to be as qualified as men to be CEO, rather than much more qualified, that would increase the number of potential female CEOs.

No, because we have culture where women seek a strongly balanced life (between work and family), while men don't. You don't become a leader unless you accept living for work, to a very large extent.

You can just as easily argue that men are worse off in this scenario, since they (on average) get the less diverse life.

Do you have any theories as to why men in the Netherlands seek to work more?

That is not true in general, it is only true in some situations. In other situations, helping women hurts men (more specifically, feminists often choose methods to help women that harm men).

It might be true that in some situations, such as domestic abuse, some feminists choose methods that hurt men, this doesn't mean that there is no solution that would help both women and men.

The latter.

Do you have an example of the law being openly discriminatory towards men?

The longer one cares, the stronger the bond with the child. Men who provide will have a weaker bond with their children. So do the courts arrange it so that the less involved parents gets more time with the child to strengthen this bond? No, the opposite.

Choices have consequences, for men and for women. The difference is that men who provide get and/or no support to deal with the downsides of those choices, while women do/did.

This is unfair.

It might be true that the courts don't recognize the value of sacrificing time spent with the child in favor of work, but this doesn't mean they shouldn't recognize the value of sacrificing the value of work experience in favor of spending time with the child. Perhaps they should recognize both?

I'm not going to say that the family court system is entirely fair, but to say that people are pushed into arrangements is a bit of a stretch.

When men don't get a choice for shared parenting, despite there being no objective reasons why they can't do the required things, they are pushed into an unfair arrangement (if one assumed that both parents have equal rights).[/quote]
In general, the courts will seek to continue the relationship the parents had with the child during the marriage. After all, in most instances had the marriage continued, the work/childcare balance would have likely remained the same.