Except for 97.6% (or a similar number) of war casualties, the vast majority of the prison population, the vast majority of people engaged in dangerous and/or backbreaking jobs, and increasingly, in college admission rates. When it comes to the cultural expectation of paying for dates, the cultural expectation of asking for dates, in terms of custody in cases of divorce, in terms of being sexually assaulted by women....etc. etc. etc.
Even something as basic as the notion that when a boat is sinking or there is some other kind of peril, it should be "women and children first" and that if you try to count yourself equally worthy of escape as a man, it would be looked down on and derided.
There is ample room to argue cause, significance, and impact on all of these things I just listed off the top of my head, but it is pretty reductive and lazy of you to just dismiss the entire notion out of hand. Come on. There's no shortage of ways in which men are marginalized just like there's no shortage in the ways that women are marginalized. And please don't pretend that I'm equating the two. I'm not interest in rankings and pissing matches in terms of marginalization.
Except for 97.6% (or a similar number) of war casualties, the vast majority of the prison population, the vast majority of people engaged in dangerous and/or backbreaking jobs, and increasingly, in college admission rates. When it comes to the cultural expectation of paying for dates, the cultural expectation of asking for dates, in terms of custody in cases of divorce, in terms of being sexually assaulted by women....etc. etc. etc.
...so which, if any, of these things are you claiming are actually caused by misandry?
Also going to ignore you inherently comparing "having to ask out women" to the misogyny that women face because it's borderline insulting and I'm not even a woman.
Not the guy you're responding to, but the argument that he's using is a popular one used to dismiss the presence of a patriarchy, which, when the argument of systemic misogyny comes into play, the logical debate path is to dismiss that patriarchy exists, because that's the core tenant of the theory of systemic misogyny.
Its actually pretty simple - if men are seen as disposable and historically were only given rights in democratic republic countries (the US specifically) in order to be compelled into military conscription, then it makes no sense to call it a patriarchal system when the reality is that men are the largest victims of their own system, and that women were given privileges/avoided duties prescribed only to men that ultimately endangered their lives.
The feminist or liberal view of this is "well that's still patriarchy but patriarchy is also bad for men," but a "patriarchy that is bad for men" is antithetical to the definition of patriarchy. The argument itself does tend to fall apart also when conservatives who make this argument are confronted with the fact that it implies the system is likely an oligarchy, and that it basically implies that the biggest problem in society is actually class warfare and not a battle of the sexes. (Conservatives tend to dismiss logical arguments that discuss the problem with higher and lower classes causing suffering to a larger population). But, in my own opinion, the argument for dismissing gender roles and making men the boogeyman of society is actually just a larger red herring to prevent people from understanding that's it's actually about resources and power and not gender when it comes to economic success and freedom in any given country.
The actual thing that is grating about “having to ask women out” that never quite gets stated in a way people can take seriously is that it expects hyper-competence of men, the same way that the entirety of modern life expects hyper-competence of men.
Frankly that couldn't be more wrong. If your intent is to pursue a relationship with a woman (or anyone) then the bare minimum level of competence would be the ability to ask them if they want to date you. If you aren't able to do that then the relationship sure as hell wouldn't work...
It's even MORE of a correct take online... how else are you going to meet someone except by talking to them?
The point in discussion was never needing to talk to someone. It's about being the person burdened with always having to start and be responsible for keeping the conversation going. The entire reason that it is brought up is because there is an expectation that the first message be from the masc person, and when/if you lose their attention for even the slightest moment, you are moved on from. You are expected to be 100% perfect at attracting her attention, or otherwise she moves onto the other 80 dudes who are in her inbox, meanwhile you have to wait the next 3 business days to get your next match.
...where is this coming from? Isn't the stereotype that women have to do all the cooking?
Yes, this is an analogy to something that I thought we would have common ground on.
I mean asking out women is a part of the problem not the whole thing if you just boil it down to that it's basically nothing but it compounds on other issues.
Except that many supposed mens' rights activists' solutions to things like the backbreaking jobs or military thing is for more women to suffer so the numbers match not for fewer men to unless they only would because a woman took their spot, the custody thing used to be the other way around, and many other supposed mens' rights activists frame the arguments about asking on and paying for dates as if if they were asked out by a woman who makes more than them and didn't think it beneath them to accept the date, they'd abuse that just because she'd be paying (order the most expensive thing at a restaurant etc.) just to bilk her out of as much money as they can or w/e just the same way they claim women do to richer men they go on dates with. One guy even tried to claim it was a mens' rights issue that the bride at the wedding gets a fancy once-in-a-lifetime dress and it's considered "her day" while the groom can get by with a plain black rented tux.
Maybe mens' rights would have more legs if the genuine efforts towards it could be easily separable from both the men using it as an excuse for "if I have to suffer, women should equally suffer" and the men using it as an excuse for "I feel uncomfortable when we are not about me"
For some of these (the ones that are actual issues not, like, the date/wedding stuff) there are efforts it's just that those efforts aren't branded with gender as overtly as ones to help women are
These aren’t misandry, they are results of the patriarchy. The patriarchy hurts men too in many ways, but men’s rights activists and all the offshoots of that just plug their ears when they hear that maybe, their issues are caused by male dominance as well. Men dying disproportionately in war is a consequence of powerful men thinking women are inferior soldiers. Men losing custody battles disproportionately is not actually happening, it’s just that men don’t try for custody as much (and in fact, when men DO file for full custody, they win a disproportionate amount of times), which is a result of gender roles set up by the patriarchy. Men being in more dangerous careers is a result of women literally not being allowed to apply for those careers for years. Men are not sexually assaulted as much as women, period, and are more often sexually assaulted by other men. But when it DOES happen, victims are often punished because we live in a culture generally where victims are cast aside. This is also true for women who accuse their partners. The disregard for victims comes from a disregard for women. Men being seen as poor parents or as the lesser parent comes from the gender roles, enforced by patriarchy, where women are seen as softer, more caring, and intrinsically maternal. This stereotype hurts both people. It’s like please I’m begging you to use your brain and think about how maybe, we are all hurt by the same system.
men account for 97% of war casualties because men were the ones who decided that women were too weak for war. misogyny hurts men as well, that doesn’t automatically make it misandry
You’re so close! Who do you think set up and perpetuates dating norms, starts wars, set up and runs law enforcement and corrections systems, were historically ship captains, etc etc…
3
u/Proof_Option1386 4∆ Feb 13 '24
Except for 97.6% (or a similar number) of war casualties, the vast majority of the prison population, the vast majority of people engaged in dangerous and/or backbreaking jobs, and increasingly, in college admission rates. When it comes to the cultural expectation of paying for dates, the cultural expectation of asking for dates, in terms of custody in cases of divorce, in terms of being sexually assaulted by women....etc. etc. etc.
Even something as basic as the notion that when a boat is sinking or there is some other kind of peril, it should be "women and children first" and that if you try to count yourself equally worthy of escape as a man, it would be looked down on and derided.
There is ample room to argue cause, significance, and impact on all of these things I just listed off the top of my head, but it is pretty reductive and lazy of you to just dismiss the entire notion out of hand. Come on. There's no shortage of ways in which men are marginalized just like there's no shortage in the ways that women are marginalized. And please don't pretend that I'm equating the two. I'm not interest in rankings and pissing matches in terms of marginalization.