Here is an actual case:

"DeCrow raised eyebrows in 1981 when she served as defense counsel to Frank Serpico, the former New York detective and whistleblower, in a paternity suit. Serpico claimed the plaintiff had used him as a “sperm bank” and lied about being on the Pill while knowingly trying to conceive, and asserted that he had a constitutional right not to become a parent against his will. (The family-court judge, a woman, ruled in Serpico’s favor, but he lost on appeal.)

DeCrow, by then a lawyer in private practice in Syracuse, New York, endorsed Serpico’s argument on feminist grounds. “Just as the Supreme Court has said that women have the right to choose whether or not to be parents, men should also have that right,” she told The New York Times, calling this “the only logical feminist position to take...” Source: The Feminist Leader Who Became a Men's-Rights Activist.

Euro-Japan-American capitalism required a clear defense around the world. We were in a position to provide it, and we did... — Bitter Crank

As far as I know, every scholar interested in the topic traces "development"--you know, Third World development; the policies, programs, interventions, etc. that have comprised the West's attempts to "develop" the economies of the "Third World"--back to Harry Truman's inaugural address in January, 1949.

Do you think that development, including the U.S. Peace Corps, has, by design, been part of that defense of Euro-Japan-American capitalism around the world?

Do you think, as many scholars do, that "development" has been a disaster? A disaster worth mentioning alongside things like the invasion of Iraq?

REDMAP gets an honorable mention. I believe we are the only democracy on Earth that allows elected officials to draw electoral maps. — Srap Tasmaner

Coincidentally, I was discussing that a few hours ago with somebody.

I said that liberals/progressives/Democrats are spending their energy and other resources on the wrong thing if they want to abolish the Electoral College. Gerrymandering, not the Electoral College, is the problem, I said.

A solution that I thought of many years ago goes like this: amend the U.S. Constitution to say that every congressional district must be drawn with at least one right angle.

I do not know if one right angle in every congressional district on the map would work, but something needs to be done about the gerrymandering. I believe that more than anything else it is why the U.S. is so divided politically and government is so gridlocked at the state and federal (and probably local) levels.

The title of the article on the SMH Homepage is different to the one on the article page - it's 'The moment US politics moved beyond reason' - that is what I paraphrased as 'completely post rational' to highlight that it's even more egregious than plain old 'post truth'. — Wayfarer

I think that that is misleading. I would say "moved completely beyond reason".

Or was voting for the same party every election based on your sex/gender, race, etc. within reason?

Reason, it seems to me, would mean weighing every option and acting according to the one that you rationally conclude is in your best interest. I do not think that voting for Democrats because you are a woman, Republicans because you are Southern Baptist, etc. ever fell within reason.

Then again, I do not have a PhD in history, but I doubt that a period characterized by what is being called reason can be found anywhere in the past in the U.S.--or anywhere else.

The SMH has a good column by Peter Hartcher today on the idea that the USA has gone completely post rational. You have people lining up to take down the Affordable Care Act, even though they or their immediate loved ones might owe their lives to it... — Wayfarer

I don't see anything in the column that suggests that there has been some rupture from rationality and leap to "completely post rational".

I see the column saying that Americans are now divided completely along party affiliation lines. Education, age, race, sex/gender, religion, etc. no longer predict voter behavior. Identity as Democrat or Republican now completely predict voter behavior.

But polling is not an exact science, and there are always exceptions, right? The good news is that I have a convenient exception to use as an illustration: me. I identify as Democrat, but I do not blame everything on Republicans, oppose anything Republicans support, seek to undo anything that Republicans do, etc. Contrast that with the voters used as examples in the column: they oppose the other party in any way and support their own party in any way, even if it means they lose their health insurance.

The column arrives at this conclusion:

"We are now really right on the cusp of a real fracturing of the political system and a reorganisation of the parties," says Hetherington.

When irrationality and dysfunction prevail and good government is impossible, perhaps it's time."

What that conclusion leaves out is the possibility and threat of secession. Rather than the party system getting a shake-up, the United States of America might break up.

For anybody who does not know what I mean about secession, here's an article from only 2 months ago that is evidence of the possibility and threat of secession: Group files another 'Calexit' initiative in push for California's independence .

Speaking of Morris Berman, I believe that I have read that he says secession might be a good thing, the only solution, or something like that. I am not necessarily saying that I agree. But it further illustrates how the most keen observers see the U.S. as extremely divided politically.

I believe that Christopher Lasch diagnosed all of it in The Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of Democracy--published in 1996.

Everybody else--including the "experts"--is still scrambling to figure out what has happened.

Dropping or flunking out of college was a ticket to the jungle. Professors then as now were liberals. That's when grade inflation started. If you give a kid a C you may be condemning him to a horrible death in a steaming jungle on the other side of the world, in a war that the country was starting to hate.

So they gave out A's. And that was the real start of the split. College-type kids are the elite, non-college kids are fed into the meatgrinder.

All of our politics comes from that. That's when the split between the elite and the deplorables split this country apart. The liberal college kids took over the culture and hate the rednecks. — fishfry

This is the first time I have heard that. But it is an interesting theory, and it makes sense.

Maybe you’ve misapprehened what this person was saying? — praxis

I will let you be the judge.

Here is the exchange:

WISDOMfromPO-MO It's true that is we consume less we will need to produce less, which is fine. The only one hurt will be the profiteers. They'll have to live in billions instead of 10s of billions. The point is, if one is if one is concerned with pollution just consume less. — Rich

A contraction in output due to decreased consumer demand will likely result in unemployment, — WISDOMfromPO-MO
Absolutely not. The problem is wealth concentration not of production. Conventional thinking is making this world into one polluted mess. The top 1% had sure been successful in messing with everyone's thinking. So what is the point of the OP? You still are buying into all of the marketing junk pouring through the media. When it comes right down to it, you are still quite conventional. — Rich

What went wrong? — Banno

Read Why America Failed: The Roots of Imperial Decline, by Morris Berman.

If you do not feel like doing that, read Berman's blog, DARK AGES AMERICA.

I think that "consume less" misses the point.

The prices of many--and maybe all--of the commodities that are consumed in the major markets for consumption include very little of the costs of producing those commodities and getting them to the consumer.

And the costs that those prices do include, such as the price of the cheap labor of women in Third World sweatshops, would be unacceptable to most consumers who took the time to educate themselves about them.

Even when costs are being publicized, such as the news media covering Native Americans' fight against oil pipelines--even when it is in a consumer's own country--people are mostly ignorant about actual costs and respond religiously to price.

One way to bring price closer to reality is taxes. But consumers mostly see taxes as an injustice to their own selves or, at best, a cost unrelated to free markets.

If--miraculously--Westerners suddenly decided to account for all costs of commodities and to no longer fall for distorted prices, corporations would look for other markets in which to sell their products. If capital doesn't hesitate to go where the labor is cheapest, I'm sure it doesn't hesitate to go where consumers are the most ignorant and willing.

Basically, "consume less" means change your behavior in formal markets.

Transcending formal markets is what would really be revolutionary. Learning to be self-reliant / self-sufficient and only entering formal markets when it is one's only choice (you can't fly your own aircraft, so you hire an airline to fly you somewhere; you can't mine your own minerals, so you buy them from a mine operator, etc.) is what would be revolutionary.

But the highly-educated minority have convinced themselves that the magical power of formal free markets and price-based rationing turns everything it touches into an earthly paradise and that anything outside of it's historically unprecedented efficiency is folly. And consumers mindlessly go along with that to a degree that the world's religions probably can only dream of getting from their followers. Nothing gets a response out of a human being more than a change in price.

The overwhelming majority of people are ignorant about the variety of human behavior--including self-expression--that is considered normal.

If we are going to call gender norms oppressive then to be consistent we would have to call all norms oppressive. We would have to call anything that demands that anybody conform to any norm oppressive. For example, we are socialized to believe that we are biologically wired to be "sexual beings". There are probably people who do not think of themselves as "sexual beings". If telling somebody based on biology that he is a man is oppressive then telling somebody that due to his biology he is a "sexual being" is oppressive.

The solution is to educate people about how diverse human behavior is and how the categories that we classify ourselves with are biased towards certain worldviews. The problem is the ignorance of individuals, not any system.

rickyk95 — rickyk95

If the science gods convene tomorrow and then emerge from a room and say in front of a waiting press corps, "Beginning now, psychology is officially a hard science. In addition, quantum physics is no longer considered science. After careful consideration we have concluded that quantum physics is closer to philosophy", does it change anything intellectually?

It might rearrange things politically, economically and socially. It might change who gets the most funding, the most prestige, the most fame, etc. But does it in any way change what we know and our ability to acquire knowledge and understand the world?

What difference does it make if something is or is not considered to be science?

Sure we do, it's abundantly obvious. Very high numbers of guns in culture, frequent depictions of killings in movies and video games, and imitative behaviour on the part of alienated or psychologically unbalanced individuals. It's a problem almost unique to the USA, although it does happen in other countries, but with nowhere near the same frequency. — Wayfarer

Speculation.

At least until conclusive scientific evidence of a causal relationship is presented.

And "why they are happening" refers to the underlying cause--the one variable that can be isolated.

It could be that contemporary life deprives people of sleep.

We don't know.

It's the failure of effective legislation which is the single largest contributing factor to this. In case you missed it, earlier I reported that in 2015, there were approximately 15,000 non-suicide gun deaths in America, and 1 in Japan. How is that not a political problem? — Wayfarer

I have, and will continue to, stuck to the issue that you made the topic of this thread: public mass murders. Things like individual suicides, accidental gun deaths, etc. are a separate issue.

I would say that you are right. Legislation is needed. The state of Virginia scrutinized its policies after the Virginia Tech shooting and asked why many opportunities to intervene were missed. I do not know if the Virginia legislature responded. I do not know if they increased funding for mental health services, required educators to learn to recognize red flags, or anything​ like that. I have not researched it.

But you are right, legislatures have an important role to play.

However, private organizations and private citizens also need to take some responsibility in being more aware of the behavior of others, recognizing the warning signs of a potential mass shooting, being aware of suspicious behavior, etc. and knowing how to intervene.

I have had many different employers. Right now I have two employers. The contrast in their policies and practices says a lot. One of my present employers is proactive and spends a lot of resources on training everybody in the organization about preventing the kind of violence like the recent mass shooting in Las Vegas. None of my other employers offers any such training. The difference is not because of laws. The priorities and sense of responsibility that private organizations and citizens have in their private lives are as important as the actions (or non-actions) of legislatures.

For which statement do you want scientific proof? — Bitter Crank

No specific statement.

What science is there that supports your thesis that violence and murder are inherent features of firearms?

People kill other people with guns because that is what guns are made for. People kill on a massive scale with guns like assault weapons because guns like assault weapons are made for that purpose. Where is the science that specifically addresses those specific propositions?

What can we actually do to stop such massmurders?... — Metaphysician Undercover

Stop wasting time and energy in uncivil discussions (see 70% of the posts in this thread if you don't know what I mean by that) over guns, violence, the NRA, "the mentally ill", the media, video games, the Second Amendment, the inferior character of the U.S. compared to "other industrialized nations", the inferior character of the state of Mississippi compared to states in the northeast, etc., etc., etc.

In many of these mass murders there were red flags well in advance of the crime and opportunities to intervene were missed. Virginia Tech is the best example that I know of.

Again, these recent (the past 20 years or so) mass murders are always highly politicized by people everywhere on the political spectrum.

We can't predict when and where they will happen. We do not know why they happen.

But I have never heard of anybody spontaneously carrying out a mass shooting. Therefore, I am probably not going out on a limb by saying that each mass shooting is the culmination of many things. Red flags are probably there well before the end a lot of the time. Every second and every unit of energy spent ideologizing and disrespecting and verbally attacking each other over statistical, historical and psychological split hairs are resources no longer available to learn to recognize the red flags and intervene before lives are lost to senseless violence.

There is a complete 'disconnect' between guns and consequences. I'm not talking about squirrel, duck, and deer hunters.

Sheriff Joe Lombardo of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department on Wednesday referred to the gunman, Stephen Paddock, as “disturbed,” but said that much of the past 10 years of his life was a mystery. “What we know is Stephen Paddock is a man who spent decades acquiring weapons and ammo and living a secret life, much of which will never be fully understood,” he said.

“Don’t you think the concealment of his history, of his life, was well-thought-out?” the sheriff asked. “It’s incumbent upon us as professionals to dig that up.”
— New York Times

"Disturbed"? You think?

"Mystery"? What mystery?

"Secret life"? What secret life?.

The pile of guns and ammunition that Paddock had in his hotel room were legally obtained, presumably, on the open gun market. It's all for sale--semi-automatic guns and 'bump stock' devices to enable the automatics to overcome the deficiency of being merely 'semi' automatics. The only "disturbed" Paddock (instead of the stark raving mad Paddock) had further equipped his rifles with enhanced sites that enabled him to target individuals from a distance of 1200 feet. In addition he had enough ammunition to fire away for what, 9 minutes?

The deployment of his arsenal in Las Vegas follows the logic of the legally sold product: A large share of the 300 millions guns in private hands are designed to kill people--mostly one, two, or three at a time, but more complicated and entirely legal guns are on sale that are designed to kill dozens, and injure a few hundred in just a few minutes more.

At this very moment, Thursday, 12:30, p.m., central time zone, potential killers are browsing the legal, public, socially accepted displays of guns, ammunition, and accessories and are opening their wallets to buy.

Are to suppose that Stephen Paddock is the last person who will follow the logic of the product and that no one else will ever fulfill the purpose for which the (in effect) machine guns are designed--killing lots of people? No. — Bitter Crank

What scientific evidence is there that supports your thesis?

I would take a close look at any reliable scientific evidence--any research paper, journal article, etc.-- you know of.

I assume this refers to the laws of USA... — BlueBanana

The way that I remember the book, that is correct.

and you're from USA? — BlueBanana

Yes.

Michael — Michael

,

Ciceronianus the White — Ciceronianus the White

oysteroid — oysteroid

If a woman lies to a man about using birth control; conceives, gives birth to, and raises a child and does not tell him; 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, etc. years later retroactively demands child support payments from him; and the law supports her the whole way, it should not have to be explained how anybody could find all of that morally and legally unacceptable.

The "best interest of the child" argument is poorly thought out. If a man knows that he is a father he will act like a father. That means doing things to increase his income, giving up a lifestyle that is not a good example for his child, etc. Giving women financial incentive to have their maternal cake and eat it too, and in the process keeping a man from being the father he could be, is not in the best interests of children and encourages behavior that hurts them.

If I recall correctly, I believe that Farrell shows that men who have a lot of money are the favorite targets of such fraud.

It may not be a widespread phenomenon like sexual assault, but it is sexist and dehumanizing nonetheless. If just one man and one child is treated that way it needs to be corrected. It reduces fathers to nothing more than sources of sperm and financial support.

As far as I know, only the men's rights movement--a movement that is supposedly not needed and is supposedly misogynistic--is the only place where the problem has been noticed.

It is just one example of why the "no men's rights movement is needed" assertion is false.

Seriously though, guys are supposed to defend women, or at least it is upstanding, and more pleasant to see than them bashing them, if not just poking fun and in good humor, but it is also good to see women defending men, that's what I like to watch when I look for my anti-feminism.

I don't like to see men bashing women, or women bashing men. I like my men to defend women, and my women to defend men. Seems far more heroic, and less self invested. — Wosret

It is not about civility, or the lack thereof, in the war between the sexes. I have already covered how uncivil and irrational gender politics inevitably always seems to be (look at some of the fallacious responses in this thread for even more evidence).

It is about whether or not we as a society and as a civilization really believe in the things we supposedly believe in, such as protecting the individual.

If one man is treated unfairly and unjustly by the system, if the women's liberation movement is oblivious to that injustice or does not care, and if the men's rights movement is the only thing that does bring attention to and concern about that injustice, then the assertion that a men's rights movement is not needed is false.

↪WISDOMfromPO-MO The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) are Social Justice Warriors par excellence. The American liberal, receiving many pleas for donations, has to decide whether he likes the approach of the SPLC or the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) better. The SPLC goes after its targets in court and attempts to destroy the groups legally and/or financially The ACLU is more likely to defend the rights of American nazis to express their views in an orderly manner.

SPLC lists every hate group it can find, almost a thousand (that's their raison d'être) but they don't tell us much about these groups -- like how large they are, what bad things they actually do, what their specific beliefs are, and so on. We can't tell how much of a threat some skinhead group (with maybe 5 members) in western Washington is to the American Way of Life. Or, for that matter, whether skinheads ARE part of the American Way of Life. — Bitter Crank

After reading this response I will have to side with the MRAs.

I can't comment on the 99% of "manosphere" elements that the Southern Poverty Law Center lists that I know nothing about, but I know that I have received a lot of valuable information and thinking by reading the A Voice for Men website, reading the work of Warren Farrell--who A Voice for Men founder Paul Elam apparently sees as a mentor--, etc.

In The Myth of Male Power Farrell calls high school football "Government-sanctioned child abuse", or something like that. That was long before what we now know about football and concussions, CTE, etc. was revealed. It was long before former NFL players started committing suicide one after another and donating their brains for research--and CTE being found in those brains.

Alas, apparently we are supposed to think that a scholar and activist who was well ahead of almost everybody else in publicly sounding the alarm about football and the well-being of boys and men is a misogynist and an extremist spreading hate and bigotry.

Maybe if men's rights had been taken more seriously a lot of destroyed lives could have been prevented and a lot of lost lives could have been avoided.

Because it is very difficult to capture qualitative differences in work experiences in a labor report, it is also difficult to say that any class of people is discriminated against, only on the basis of income. — Bitter Crank

Warren Farrell shows in The Myth of Male Power that men, among other differences, have longer commutes to work on average than women do.

I guess that puts him in the same class as the Ku Klux Klan in some people's minds.

apparently in some jurisdictions the way that the law is written a woman can give birth to and raise a child without ever telling the biological father, and then sue him retroactively for child support payments... — WISDOMfromPO-MO

If that is true, it basically reduces men to nothing more than sperm donors.

I should also add that the Southern Poverty Law Center has named men's rights activists as a hate group.

I hope that that does not include Farrell, but it wouldn't surprise me.

You have to be sure to dot every i and cross every t when you are talking about gender politics.

I should probably add that somebody who is reading this thread is probably saying that just by bringing the topic up I am being complicit to misogyny and complicit in the systematic oppression and domination of women.

Another dreadful mass-shooting, with an alienated man murdering nine strangers then killing himself. This time in Germany - but the world is a global village.

I can't help but think that this has become a meme; and that for a certain type of mentality, the behaviour has become normalised. So at any given time, there are probably many thousands of men - it's always men - who will be thinking 'I could do that'. Presumably, their lives are full of sufficient inner torment and self-hatred to provide the impetus for such terrible crimes.

The Nice truck-murderer told an acquaintance 'you wait, soon everyone will know about me'.

And then, when they occur, they trigger world-wide media coverage, and inspire (if that is the right word) the next hideous example.

It's a pity society doesn't believe in hell any more. As it is, these people believe, among other things, that as they will take themselves out with their final, despicable act, they will never have to suffer the consequences. So I can't see any way to prevent these acts from regularly occuring from now on. I think it is an extreme manifestation of the attitude that nothing matters, and that everything is simply a spectacle - a complete disassociation from reality. — Wayfarer

Why can't we just be honest?

We don't really know why these mass murders are happening.

Every explanation I have heard amounts to speculation.

One thing is for sure: they are highly politicized.

Haven't we always had epidemic levels of violence in the U.S.? In the Old West it was...well, you know. I'll never forget a photograph I saw in Guthrie, OK: people standing around and looking at a bullet-ridden body in a store window. I guess film and TV have replaced the store window. Then there was the violence of the Prohibition era; the violence of the '60's; Kent State (the mass murder that nobody ever seems to bring up); the War On Drugs; and all of the gang violence in inner cities.

I do not believe that what I am about to say is speculation. I understand this to be sociological fact: the violence always afflicted low-income urban areas and was mostly ignored, but now that it has leached into affluent suburbs suddenly it is considered a cultural and moral crisis.

It now appears in strange, unpredictable patterns. It now inspires ideological passion about public health vs. the Second Amendment. It now has FOX News, CNN and MSNBC to milk every ounce of political capital and TV/radio ratings they can from it. But it has been there all along.

I don't think the question we should be asking is what philosophical, religious, political, psychological and sociological variables it can be reduced to. I think the question we should be asking is who we want to be, and how.

If we want to be people who tolerate senseless, preventable violence, there is probably not much any academic, legislator, clergy, social activist, etc. can do to stop the mass murders.

I may have used the wrong word. What would you count them as? Social-constructs? — Posty McPostface

Traits.

Is there really a difference between expressing a belief masked as a social construct and on the other hand displaying it? — Posty McPostface

Masculinity is not a belief.

Saying masculinity is a belief is like saying attached ear lobes are a belief.

it's always men... — Wayfarer

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goleta_postal_facility_shootings

Well, in an inter-subjective world where meanings are derived from one's position or context within society, expressing and justifying beliefs is a never-ending process... — Posty McPostface

Since when are masculinity and femininity "beliefs"?

Only a few philosophers, psychologists, and other sociologists know better. Although there aren't many of them unfortunately in positions of power.

Will the philosopher king please stand up already? — Posty McPostface

Well, I have no idea what I "express" other than my personal thoughts, feelings, emotions, imagination, etc.

I have no idea how anybody can "express" anything other than their own subjective experience.

If you are talking about something culturally constructed, I think the word you need is display.

Unless you mean expressing one's personal response to something culturally constructed--one's personal interpretation of, relationship with, feelings about, attitude towards, or ideal manifestation of masculinity, femininity, etc.

So, what's the deal with expressing masculinity? — Posty McPostface

What's the deal with publicly, loudly, defiantly expressing anything?

Narcissists in need of attention and approval?

Identify politics as a way to obtain and keep resources in a zero-sum game? The wheel that squeaks the loudest gets the oil?

Who says that we are all either masculine or feminine? Who says we can't be neither one?

I don't know what, if anything, I "express", but this "expressing" business sounds like an unneeded burden.

I suppose it is all about how one wants to be known by others.

But what if the way one wants to be known by others cannot be expressed? What if something can be expressed but nobody will notice​ it?

Or, if people don't care what other people think, is the "expressing" business really a person coping with an internal conflict? You want one thing, your body wants another thing, so you find a happy medium?

Resolving an internal conflict out loud and publicly rather quietly and privately?

From experience, I have been treated as an object more by women then I have by men, but I have come to realise that those who have treated me that way - either men or women - are those with the least self-esteem and such people, in their vulnerability, can be rather monstrous. They follow others and even steal other people's personality; if A is attracted to B, then they are also attracted to B, because what they seek is the esteem given to them by others. I have encountered people who copy and then ridicule or ostracise the person that they are copying as though trying to separate themselves from the fact that they are slaves to this lack of self-esteem and they are so petrified of being independent and alone that overtime they lose their humanity... — TimeLine

I have to catch myself every day and correct the thinking that men are horrible excuses for human beings.

"Wow!", I will think. "That stranger--a male--was empathetic and compassionate towards me, and he didn't even know me".

If I caught myself prejudging another person because he/she was female, African-American, homosexual, etc., I would feel ashamed. That's not the case with prejudices, stereotyping, bigotry, etc. with respect to men.

And, as many of the responses in this thread show, it is futile trying to expose such anti-male attitudes--such double standard in attitudes towards prejudice and bigotry--and get people to take them seriously because you will be met with "Men have all the power", "The system funnels all benefits to men", etc., and people won't listen.

With each new thing I hear in response to men's concerns it sounds more and more like I am dealing with an ideology that depends on vilifying men and viewing men as the enemy of all good in the world.

I think that it is clear that there is misandry--I catch it in my own mind almost every day.

"There is no misandry" itself sounds and feels like more of that misandry I struggle with every day, to be honest.

The biggest struggle is with hating my own self for being male.

I have been treated that way by some women and men because my independence is clear and my kindness is genuine, and that can be threatening since their identity is formed under the assumption that obedience to societal expectations is absolute, that you cannot actually have real self-esteem but only if others give it to you. Society, being cunning, enables them to trick themselves into assuming that they are somehow 'individuals' when they clearly follow this desired image. Our attitude to ourselves is all a result of our social and environmental training. We "buy" and "sell" ourselves to others and social networking has become a perfect platform that enables and strengthens this lie.

“What becomes of a man who acquires a beautiful woman, with her "beauty" his sole target? He sabotages himself. He has gained no friend, no ally, no mutual trust: She knows quite well why she has been chosen. He has succeeded in buying something: the esteem of other men who find such an acquisition impressive.” Naomi Wolf

There are subtle albeit very effective behavioural demands and real power is strengthened when people believe that they are the one's making that decision. The man thinks he has made the choice of living with this beautiful woman because he wants her, and though he lives with anxiety or takes drugs or whatever that are clear indicators of his misery, he remains content living in that lie because he has acquired the esteem of others. It is like working in a dead end, horrible job year after year as long as you are getting paid. As said by Aldous Huxley:

“One believes things because one has been conditioned to believe them.” — TimeLine

In that respect it seems to me that women in the Post-Industrial West who think of themselves as liberated and independent are no different from privileged men. It may not be about the physical attractiveness of their partner, but their sense of self-worth hinges on external things. Education. Career. Home ownership. Conspicuous consumption of things like Hawaii vacations. Etc.

It feels difficult trying to​ get to know such women below a superficial level, unfortunately.

This inequality does exist in men also, I will not deny that and will say that the problem is greater than sex. That is why I said that I am not a feminist because that merely scratches the surface. The problem is in humanity, it is social and environmental, cultural and religious. These conditions transcend sex. The fault, again I will reiterate, in your argument is that you are still thinking that somehow feminism is the issue. — TimeLine

No, I have never said or thought that feminism is "the issue".

Most feminists are simply behaving the way they have to behave to win at the political game.

But that does not mean that their behavior is in their best interests.

A man can be critical of feminism and have the best interests of women at heart, believe it or not.

"You are either with us 100% or you are against women" does not do anybody any good.

Calling anybody who does not go along with you in lock-step a "misogynist" is irrational and self-defeating. Having no empathy or compassion when men bring up their concerns about how they are treated for being men--not responding to such men as a human interacting with a fellow human--takes irrational and self-defeating to even lower depths.

Well, I disagree. Studies at tertiary institutions on men and masculinities is interdisciplinary in gender studies and sociology. The idea is that if the social construction of masculinity is causally to blame for the existence of misogyny, a focus on how masculinity effects men in turn transforms the very reality that feminists seeks to stop. It should not just be one voice trying to defend itself but men and women working together.

https://cup.columbia.edu/book/masculinity-studies-and-feminist-theory/9780231122795 — TimeLine

Men are not billiard balls in a physicist's experiment. Men are not mice in a psychologist's laboratory maze. Men are not Pavlovian dogs responding to stimuli.

This whole "If we remove masculinity A from men's environment then men will no longer respond with misogyny M" business is dehumanizing. Much like the business of requiring men in college to attend training about sexual consent (and not requiring the same thing from women) is dehumanizing.

I don't think that it is very complicated: treat women as humans with dignity and rights (historically, we have not), and treat men as humans with dignity and rights.

That means treating men (and women) as people who are not perfect, make mistakes, are personally responsible for their personal choices, are capable of empathy, compassion, altruism, etc, suffer just like other humans (and, it is becoming increasingly clear, non-human life), etc.

If I was leading a men's rights movement that would be my focus: we are humans who have dignity, and not respecting that is unacceptable. I would ask young men if acquiescing to "Every man is a potential rapist" ideology is worth attending college--if compromising their dignity for the opportunity to earn a degree is a rational trade.

That barely scratches the surface of how men are treated as less than human and less than equal because of their sex.

The only response feminism has is things like, "Well, if a man is raped nobody says that he asked for it with the way that he was dressed", it seems. That is not taking men's issues and problems seriously.

A movement fighting for the dignity and rights of men that treats men as fully human and takes the problems/issues that men face seriously is needed. More "ism" is not needed, no matter if it is feminism, Protestant fundamentalism, or anything in between.

Empathy and compassion for men as men does not seem to exist. Blaming that lack of empathy and compassion on patriarchy or misogyny does nothing​ to fill the void. Telling men that their suffering is their own fault is mean spirited.

I don't have the resources to scrutinize every written or spoken word that categorically denies the existence of misandry. But I suspect that when somebody goes to that extreme in response to men's concerns, he/she is not listening and not empathizing.

But now somebody will probably say, "That failure to listen and empathize is how people are socialized under male dominance to respond to men". Feminist reasoning looks more​ circular with each response feminists make.

What you appear to be confused about is that you seem to be blaming feminism for this failure, but on the contrary, it is the construction of masculinity that has prevented the struggle of men to be voiced.

If anything, you should perhaps be praising feminism for working hard to fight these social constructions and stereotypes for ultimately shedding light on the issues that men face. — TimeLine

I don't recall ever in my life blaming feminism for anything.

Some people blame feminism for the failure of the family institution, the marriage institution, etc. in America. Some people blame feminism for the mistreatment of boys. And a lot of things around and in between. I even saw one writer blaming women's suffrage for the unsustainable expansion of government (women expect government assistance, or something like that). But I don't recall my own self ever blaming feminism for anything.

What I have said here is that I believe that women's liberation has done nothing to address or correct how men suffer as men.

Apparently feminism categorically denies that men suffer as men, I now must conclude (see the quote that inspired this thread).

My father was taught to be 'manly' and that masculine attributes were physical in nature as well as being aggressive and showing dominance. He would boast about stories on how he made people disabled and would often beat my mother up - she was a tiny woman mind you - because in his pathetic culture violence against women had become normalised. He was a mindless follower of the constructions of masculinity and did the every bidding of his social environment that he cared for more than his own family and children, his false facade showcasing someone different to what we experienced when he came home.

I care about the construction of masculinity because of the impact it has on me and my mother (who became lost because she could not escape) and siblings, all of whom bullied and harassed me as I was the youngest in the family to vent their frustrations. I have never had sex neither even kissed a man because I was for a very long time scared of men and of being hurt. While I am lucky that I was never raped or severely hurt in some physical way, psychological and in particular emotional trauma was significant because of the constant threat of violence and it took a lot to recover from the realisation that I was long hiding from the pain pretending I was protecting myself since I thought men were the enemy. I know now that by exposing my vulnerability and being myself, I am much stronger than my father. — TimeLine

I am sorry that you experienced all of that.

I am glad that you have emerged from it as a stronger person.

WISDOMfromPO-MO Yeah, there are people like that... — unenlightened

I did not say anything about "people".

I talked about the message that boys and men get every day in the culture that I am a part of.

They don't run the country, though, they don't represent a consensus of feminism even,... — unenlightened

"They" are irrelevant.

And I did not say anything about feminism, so that is a red herring or some other fallacy.

and they are therefore straw women... — unenlightened

What argument is being turned into a straw man?

If you hang out with such people and hear that every day, you need to change your life some, maybe become a refugee. — unenlightened

One of the stupidest ad hominems I have ever seen.

If this were the case, one would expect to find women dominating in matters pertaining to morality, in the judiciary and the priesthood, for examples. But they don't. Quite the reverse, because the dominant stereotype is the exact opposite - that women are morally weaker, and this is part of the justification for male dominance in every other sphere. If the dominant stereotype was that men are morally inferior, we would not put them in charge of everything. — unenlightened

A straw man.

The message seems clear to me every day: men are horrible, rotten beings; men are a necessary evil at best; etc.

Call this misandry, but are you having some spat with your ex? — TimeLine

I've seen much worse ad hominems directed against me.

Feminism is not oblivious to the suffering of men but concerns itself with the study of women. That is the point. — TimeLine

But then feminists say that a men's rights movement is not needed; men's rights activism is misogynistic; "There is no misandry"; etc.

And if somebody says that feminists care only about women, not about equality, he/she is told that nothing could be further from the truth.

To stop at calling feminism incoherent would be generous, it seems.

In order to love or hate a group or type, whether it's gender, class, race, or whatever, you first have to stereotype them... — unenlightened

Yet, it is insisted that negatively stereotyping males is not hate for males.

Mysogyny is contempt for women as you say, it is stereotyping them as inferior and then treating them as inferior... — unenlightened

The stereotype that seems to dominate is that males are morally inferior.

What could be more negative than saying that a class of humans is worse than everybody not in their class simply due to the way they were born?

Yet, we are told that misandry does not exist.

you seem to have a difficulty in grasping this,... — unenlightened

Predictably, any time that someone is concerned about men's issues other people say from a feminist perspective, "You don't get it".

A lack of empathy, a lack of respect, and an almost complete failure to listen seems to always be the feminist response to men's issues and concerns.

so let's try the ideas out on race for comparison.

Suppose we as a society think that black people are inferior to white to the extent that we treat them as property. They cannot vote, or make decisions about their lives or jobs, or appeal to the justice system. You get the picture.

Now I say to you, "they are so lucky these black people, they do not have to worry about losing their jobs, or what the government is going to do, they do not have to fight for their country, and my friends and I do not hate our slaves, we love them. And yet a clinical psychologist told me that black people are socialised to hate whites."... — unenlightened

That is a straw man.

Men are hated for being men, it seems clear to me. A clinical psychologist even told me that--based on his observations in the clinical setting, I assume--he believes that girls are socialized to hate men.

Men are human too, believe it or not. Anything that questions, denies, undermines, etc. men's humanity is misandry.

This childish game of "Who is really a victim?", "Whose oppression is really the problem?", "Who has really suffered?", etc. needs to stop. If feminists want to completely be treated as human then they should act like humans in response to everybody. If we are talking about any people other than feminists--fascists, white supremacists, PETA, Westboro Baptist Church, etc.--who show no empathy and compassion to humans we see them as bordering on less-than-human. However, the humanity of feminists does not seem to ever be questioned--not even by anti-feminists--no matter what they do. I don't know why the latter is the case, but I suspect that if these feminists who categorically deny the existence of misandry were to change their approach to men's issues and instead try listening, empathizing and showing compassion they would find that being male is its own set of negative experiences and nothing done in the name of women's liberation has addressed a lot of that.

Logic just is, just as is water, it goes where it goes and we are able to study it... — MPen89

How do you know?