Support NeoGAF

[cubicle47b]

It's the argument you're presenting.

Tell us why you fundamentally disagree.

If you scroll up I already said why. As a society we can address more than one issue at a time. We can certainly disproportionately address women's issues as they have a lot more, but if we do so while completely ignoring valid men's issues, you're going to grow a lot of resentment from people hurt by those issues.

 

[Alcotholic]

2. They reject the idea of a patriarchy; because really, it's a big part of why a lot of men's problems exist. Patriarchy says that women can't work in the military or work dangerous jobs - thus, men die more often. Patriarchy says that women take care of kids - thus, men don't get custody when they should. Patriarchy says that men are strong and shouldn't take help from anyone - thus, men don't get treatment for mental illness.

by your logic correlation=causation. Just because our society is handled by a patriarchy is the reason why men have these issues. I disagree with that notion. I think there are many things that happened in the advancement of our government during the history of America that attributed to men's problem, but I don't think that just because it's a patriarchy it caused these problems. Would a matriarchy be any better? I don't think it would be better or worse, but if this society was founded by women, we could have just as many problems for men and women. Albeit probably different set of problems.

 

[entremet]

That's not analogous. Black men aren't doing worse than black women because of all the wonderful laws and social attitudes towards black women that are holding black men down.

Black men and black women are doing worse than the average American. Black women just aren't doing *as* badly.

With men and women for the most part (acknowledging other genders exist) you're talking about a binary, either or situation. Solve a problem men have, you further tip the balance away from women. Solve a problem women have, you tip the balance more towards equality.

I totally disagree with this because the "problems" aren't all the same.

How are more mentally healthy men tipping the balance away from women?

How is less male suicide hindering women?

There's definitely a to a person with hammer everything looks like a nail kinda thinking here.

 

[CygnusXS]

I love being a SJW. I'm thinking of designing a flag.

 

[ZombiePlatypus]

Um, yeah OP. "I'm offended." Or "I'm triggered." Or "Cultural appropriation!"

Don't get me wrong, all those grievances come from valid and legitimate concerns, but they've been abused and overused to death. To the point where they've lost their weight. All thanks to outrage culture. SJW label is only a fair blowback.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

If you scroll up I already said why. As a society we can address more than one issue at a time. We can certainly disproportionately address women's issues as they have a lot more, but if we do so while completely ignoring valid men's issues, you're going to grow a lot of resentment from people hurt by those issues.

People can focus on many issues at once, but we have to prioritize what we can talk about and do something about. Time and energy are limited. entrement said something similar earlier; it's not that we can't focus on men's issues or that we don't want to, it's that we can only do so much. There is plenty of room for people primarily concerned with men's issues to step up right now and get something done. An existing problem, especially with MRAs, is they demand feminists do this for them in order to prove to them that they care, while the MRAs do nothing themselves.

 

[PSqueak]

It's a person who wants the benefits generally exposed by progressives that would directly benefit them as white males (universal healthcare, "free" college, legal weed) but are highly suspicious of or against of things that benefit women and minorities (third wave feminism gender equality, pay gaps, how police conduct themselves with regards to minorities, structural racism/sexism).

Oh, okay in that context it does sound completely different from an slacktivist.

 

[Henkka]

Using SJW to classify people who want to bully others is bullshit.

People who want to bully others are assholes, no matter what views they are espousing.

That's just how I originally understood the term. I learned about it maybe 6 months before GG happened, when it wasn't so muddled.

 

[A Link to the Past]

by your logic correlation=causation. Just because our society is handled by a patriarchy is the reason why men have these issues. I disagree with that notion. I think there are many things that happened in the advancement of our government during the history of America that attributed to men's problem, but I don't think that just because it's a patriarchy it caused these problems. Would a matriarchy be any better? I don't think it would be better or worse, but if this society was founded by women, we could have just as many problems for men and women. Albeit probably different set of problems.

What do you think is the cause of why men aren't viewed as proper caregivers? Why do you think men die more often? Do you truly think that the decision to make only men eligible for the military is not why men die more often?

 

[cubicle47b]

People can focus on many issues at once, but we have to prioritize what we can talk about and do something about. Time and energy are limited. entrement said something similar earlier; it's not that we can't focus on men's issues or that we don't want to, it's that we can only do so much. There is plenty of room for people primarily concerned with men's issues to step up right now and get something done.

I'm not sure what you disagreed with, then.

 

[Gotdatmoney]

There's nothing false about it. You aren't moving towards equality if you're solving problems on both sides when there is already a huge imbalance in place.

Yes some individuals get more screwed over than others, on both sides. But if the problem we're trying to solve is gender inequality, we aren't doing anything to solve the issue by tackling problems from both ends.

If we solve problems on both sides at the same rate, we don't start working on the real problem until we reach the point where men have no disadvantages and women still have plenty... and only then do we start truly moving towards equality.

This is statistically true. But its really does fly directly against the biggest argument feminists use (I use it myself) to promote feminism. That true feminism benefits everyone.

I'm not particularly found of tunnel vision ideology. We have the capacity to tackle multiple issues. If the interpretation of equality is perfect balance I understamd your point. My idea has always been fair opportunity however.

 

[Zoe]

Using SJW to classify people who want to bully others is bullshit.

People who want to bully others are assholes, no matter what views they are espousing.

#Asshole doesn't make for a catchy hashtag.

 

[Crocodile]

Social Justice Warrior is a term that has become basically completely flanderized unfortunately. It's supposed to mean someone who holds or argues in favor of socially liberal positions but makes arguments so stupid, pushes forth proposals that can actually be dangerous, displays such a poor understanding of context, gradation, nuance or tact that its physically painful to read what they have to say. There are a non-insignificant number of these people out there and you bump into them often enough on social media. However, thanks to GG and the like (who use it to mean "anyone who disagrees with me for any reason because I can't handle criticism"), you can't even use the term unironically anymore even in the occasional situation where it would actually fit :/

As an aside, I feel a lot of words have started to lose meaning as they've been consistently overused and/or misapplied. Words like "censorship", "pandering", "gross", etc. are used so liberally and as code words for something else I'm often left wondering if people know what those words actually mean anymore. It makes conversation more difficult and we have to waste time actually talking about what those words are supposed to mean and usage of those terms when they shouldn't be applicable pushes conversations towards hyperbole and polarization :/

It describes people who engage in progressive conversations for purposes of moral masturbation and high horse mockery rather than any actual education or real engagement with opposing positions, of which there are very, very many.

Naturally, this is eroded by people who don't have a retort and are looking for cheap character attacks. If you throw it at every progressive, then you don't have to think about anything for yourself or legitimately consider anybody else's opinion. Ironically, this bubble mentality being the thing the term was originally meant to condemn.

Not every issue has two sides or two equivalent sides but yes, someone more interested in being "holier than though" than being helpful or educational would fall under the classic SJW term as well.

Yep. Any time I see an earnest accusation of being an SJW it tells me all I need to know about that person.

I think the term kind of began to poke fun at the extreme and misguided attempts at "social justice" that would happen on sites like Tumblr. (I.E. That tumblr post where a white user is arguing that black people shouldn't be represented in animation full-stop because most animators are white and can't accurately depict a black person.)

Nowadays though, you'll get called an "SJW" just for supporting moderately progressive politics.

Yep, spot on in terms of what the word is supposed to mean.

I also find the modern use of gross to be strange and bordering on the juvenile. Must be a generational thing.

Oh good so its not just me <3

That's not analogous. Black men aren't doing worse than black women because of all the wonderful laws and social attitudes towards black women that are holding black men down.

Black men and black women are doing worse than the average American. Black women just aren't doing *as* badly.

With men and women for the most part (acknowledging other genders exist) you're talking about a binary, either or situation. Solve a problem men have, you further tip the balance away from women. Solve a problem women have, you tip the balance more towards equality.

Er I'm not entirely sure I can cosign this post, or at least all of it. Like its true that if Black Men are doing economically worse than Black Women (who have a ton of their own issues) that's not at all on Black Women. However it still has a gender-specific dynamic to it - that is Black Men are viewed to be especially dangerous which in turn influences economic opportunities, interactions with the justice system (big one), etc.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

I'm not sure what you disagreed with, then.

It seemed like you disagreed with the reasoning why more people seem to prioritize and spend their time on issues impacting women right now instead of multiple things at once.

 

[Principate]

Um, yeah OP. "I'm offended." Or "I'm triggered." Or "Cultural appropriation!"

Don't get me wrong, all those grievances come from valid and legitimate concerns, but they've been abused and overused to death. To the point where they've lost their weight. All thanks to outrage culture. SJW label is only a fair blowback.

I always find it pretty funny when people un-ironically use the term outrage culture, newsflash, these types of people have always existed and have always been upset. The reason you didn't hear about it before is because of the fact society didn't deem their ideals and grievances worthwhile and were systematically oppressed.

Because of the fact the opinions of these people and groups can be easily disseminated and actually their opinions given greater worth as western society progressed, is the reason why this so called outrage culture exists. To want for a time when outrage culture didn't exist is to want for a time when certain peoples ideas were supressed and they themselves oppressed.

There's 7 billion human's out there of course there's going to be a group of people annoyed or pissed at some small thing somewhere.

 

[QuantumZebra]

I love being a SJW. I'm thinking of designing a flag.

sign me up for one for an avatar

 

[Inferno313]

"The Wussification of America" is always worth it for a good eye-roll.

 

[Alcotholic]

What do you think is the cause of why men aren't viewed as proper caregivers? Why do you think men die more often? Do you truly think that the decision to make only men eligible for the military is not why men die more often?

Our government system perpetuates these things which happens to be a Patriarchy. But being a patriarchy is not the reason why they perpetuate these things. Our government in its current state can benefit from an equal representation from both men and women. I'm inclined to think that these things should still be an issue whether our system was a matriarchy or patriarchy, though. Genetically, men and women are both different and thousands of years ago there was a reasons as to why these gender roles were in place. It's only a recent development that people are now seeing that these gender roles are pointless. If our system was founded by a group of women, I would think that many things would have stayed the same.

 

[QuantumZebra]

I get insulted, myself. I'm a social justice rogue, thank you very much!

well hell I want Social Justice Shadow Knight then (EverQuest represent)!

"The Wussification of America" is always worth it for a good eye-roll.

I'm surprised I haven't gone blind from eyerolling over shit like that. I mean what do those people want, for the USA to be a modern-day Sparta?

 

[Gordon Shumway]

OUTRAGE &#127864;&#127863;&#127865;&#127866;&#127867;

 

[Vampire On Titus]

I always find it pretty funny when people un-ironically use the term outrage culture, newsflash, these types of people have always existed and have always been upset. The reason you didn't hear about it before is because of the fact society didn't deem their ideals and grievances worthwhile and were systematically oppressed.

Because of the fact the opinions of these people and groups can be easily disseminated and actually their opinions given greater worth as western society progressed, is the reason why this so called outrage culture exists. To want for a time when outrage culture didn't exist is to want for a time when certain peoples ideas were supressed and they themselves oppressed.

There's 7 billion human human's out there of course there's going to be group of people annoyed or pissed at some small thing somewhere.

Most of the time when people say "outrage culture" it isn't even directed at the communities and their grievances. But instead other people being dickheads on behalf of their grievances.

This is like the false dichotomy that any criticism of PC culture is just a thinly veiled want for the "halcyon days of racism." There are people like that and I do hate the phrase "PC Culture." But there are legit criticisms to be made as well. They don't all amount to bigotry.

Regardless of anything, though, it is rather unfortunate how much of this is drummed up by media hype on both sides. Clickbait and media of that nature do a lot to perpetuate this concept of eternal outrage.

 

[cubicle47b]

It seemed like you disagreed with the reasoning why more people seem to prioritize and spend their time on issues impacting women right now instead of multiple things at once.

I'm talking about society as a whole, not individuals. I don't expect feminists to address issues that primarily hurt men either. They have enough on their plates. I just expect them to respect that those issues exist.

 

[Tinfoilhatsron]

So you're telling a term meant to portray a small group of really annoying assholes got hijacked to tar more people incorrectly thus is now getting used as a blanket term meant to shut down conversation against someone?

Color me suprised. "Slacktivist" and "brogressive" too.


I used to use SJW but now it's like a magnet for conservatives everywhere. SJW this, SJW that. Fucking hell. Wasn't it just used to laugh at "white knights" or whatever? And it's, well, a blanket term meant to shut down and insult someone without considering that person's opinion.

Lesson learned. Don't attribute labels to people and just take that person's agruement as his/her own. It's too fucking easy to just say SJW/MRA and end the conversation.

I've definitely had this happen to me multiple times and, yes, I've used these terms too. I've been trying to actually consider a person's arguements more and more now before I just write them off, but it's a WIP.

Edit: Oh and "outrage culture" can fuck right off. It's getting to be a fucking cycle in those kinds of threads now. Predictable. Insanity. Over and over and over.

 

[injurai]

Hey we found one.

Unless you're being sarcastic, do you see you're applying a "with us or against us" mindset to people you just labeled as being part of a group? This has been something I've noticed with people who talk to me in this way, where suddenly I'm being assigned a side in some culture war I'm not a part of. It's just easier for the assignee to process the world that way. It has nothing to do with me. I've got plenty of opinions where I agree and disagree with certain groups, but I just choose to respond on GAF to certain topics that are more fun and enlightening to discuss than other shit I'm into, like co-op games or sports.

I follow up here because I do enjoy the enlightening discussion I sometimes find here. I tend to engage in topics I want more experience with or care about. Sometimes splitting hairs to absurdity. It seems you do to, and take genuine concern with not just what is being discussed, but how it's being discussed. Because it does make a big difference. So I don't mean to put you on a back leg here, I don't mean to pass judgement or patronize. I fail myself all the time. You're bringing up some meta points in terms of discussion, so I thought I'd chip in while on the subject.

You previously choose to use "toxic masculinity" to not talk about all masculinity but a subset that is toxic by your definition. When people say sjw they aren't talking about socially progressive people. They are talking about people that throw candor out the window. People who are also toxic by their definition. Such as the "with us or against us" mentality.

What I'm so confused about is how you made that comment to be so apropos of yourself when it wasn't calling you or the likes of you out. At least not from my perspective. Do you identify yourself as a social justice warrior? I wouldn't think so. You went on to say you don't like these labels and you're not part of a culture war. But onto the garnering a label in this so called culture war. Well call it what you want, but you are part of a multi-faceted "great debate." We all work off of a frame of reference that we've formed, and even you draw distinctions between sides. Nobody said there were only two sides. But distinction exist, every makes them through their language. Do you mean to say you only ever act devil's advocate? I know you don't, but even in roles where we could easily distance ourselves from a position. People argue against us for the position we put ourselves in.

Even the "hey we found one." Are you being sarcastic? You've apparently labeled someone. You hedge, but then follow making a serious point, just in case the person is who you thought they were.

 

[plagiarize]

Er I'm not entirely sure I can cosign this post, or at least all of it. Like its true that if Black Men are doing economically worse than Black Women (who have a ton of their own issues) that's not at all on Black Women. However it still has a gender-specific dynamic to it - that is Black Men are viewed to be especially dangerous which in turn influences economic opportunities, interactions with the justice system (big one), etc.

Obviously I'm speaking broadly when I say men and women. Right now the type of issues that get focused on are the ones that effect the type of people in government. Not exclusively the ones that only effect that type of person of course, but those ones get more focus than ones that don't particularly effect the type of person who makes up the government.

If a group was set up to focus on the issues that specifically effect black men, I'd have no problems with such a group. Because they would be bringing focus onto something that doesn't get enough focus today. Same with advocacy groups that want to highlight issues that most impact women.

Now if a group came along and said 'well if black men get an advocacy group, we're going to start one for white men' I'd be similarly against it. Because that group is already seeing more focus paid to it by the government, and an advocacy group trying to get the government to pay issues that only effect white men, would only distract and work against people fighting for equal thought and representation in society and law and what have you.

That's why I think an advocacy group aimed specifically at men's rights is only harmful.

But the truth is, issues which specifically effect men already get more government focus... because men make up the government. I don't think they single those issues out or anything... but I don't think they get ignored either in the same way as issues that pretty much only effect women or minorities. Similarly issues that don't effect white men but do effect black men get mostly ignored too.

The whole point of an advocacy group is to ensure that more of the governments attention is focused on a particular issue. That does happen at the cost of other things.

 

[DarkHeartedKill]

bae
shortie
Hipster

Shawty*

Bae is god awful annoying. I use it ironically when referring to material possessions though.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

The US had laws on the books well before someone in another country, that we were fully separated from at that point, pushed for some laws.

Women wouldn't be allowed to vote in the US for another ~40 years since that law. The first woman allowed to serve in Congress wasn't until 1916.

So congrats, you found the one incorrect feminist

" Caroline stated: "The natural position of woman is inferiority to man. Amen! That is a thing of God's appointing, not of man's devising. I believe it sincerely, as part of my religion. I never pretended to the wild and ridiculous doctrine of equality.""

that influenced laws in one country.

It's basically this argument:

Yikes, that woman. Yeah what a "feminist", what with her calling equality "ridiculous".

I love that gif so much, btw.

The whole reason I brought up that the person who initiated it was a Feminist was an attempt to highlight that you can be wrong no matter the label.

But she wasn't a feminist by any semi-modern definition of the word and her motivation for her law-changing wasn't motivated by feminism (gender equality).
It's kind of like saying Martin Luther was progressive or modern for reforming Christianity, and ignoring his hardcore anti-semitism.

 

[silvermember]

Um, yeah OP. "I'm offended." Or "I'm triggered." Or "Cultural appropriation!"

Don't get me wrong, all those grievances come from valid and legitimate concerns, but they've been abused and overused to death. To the point where they've lost their weight. All thanks to outrage culture. SJW label is only a fair blowback.

Abused?

Or are people finally tired of living in a society where only a certain race, gender and sexuality take presidency over the others. For decades when people outside the norm had issues, they had to sit back and take and now they don't have to.

I find it rather ironic that people are whining about people whining about stuff. it is so funny.

And the even sadder thing about your logic, it was probably one person out of 7 billion who complained but to people who hate the outrage culture it was everyone in that group. I guess 1 is a representative of a whole group.

 

[Gordon Shumway]

Honkey..

 

[injurai]

Honkey..

Based Macklemore.

 

[The Elite]

MRA are purposefully distracting the conversation *away* from women's rights as much as possible. That's pretty much the point of them. They want to see equal resources used to combat men's problems as are used to combat women's problems.

And of course it doesn't assume we can only address one issue at a time.

The quickest way to reach equality, is to focus on the disadvantages women have, until things threaten to swing back the other way.

MRAs whole tactic is to hijack any and all conversations about women's rights.

MRAs have nothing to do with this. They are an anomaly whose sole purpose is to be destructive towards women. They are advocating illegal actions. Don't lump actual issues in with this group.

What you're basically saying is that we have to look at women's issues before we can even look at the small list of men's issues. Sorry but that sounds ridiculous to me when we have enough resources to deal with both. I alone can advocate against violence against women and also raise awareness regarding the high suicide rates among men. I don't have to focus on one and ignore the other until one is dealt with. I don't even understand the logic behind that.

As a society we should strive to be better than ticking things off an Excel list sorted by gender/race etc.

 

[plagiarize]

MRAs have nothing to do with this. They are an anomaly whose sole purpose is to be destructive towards women. They are advocating illegal actions. Don't lump actual issues in with this group.

What you're basically saying is that we have to look at women's issues before we can even look at the small list of men's issues. Sorry but that sounds ridiculous to me when we have enough resources to deal with both. I alone can advocate against violence against women and also raise awareness regarding the high suicide rates among men. I don't have to focus on one and ignore the other until one is dealt with. I don't even understand the logic behind that.

As a society we should strive to be better than ticking things off an Excel list sorted by gender/race etc.

My first post was a reply to someone talking about there being a place for an advocacy group focused on men's issues. Please read my most recent post for a more detailed and hopefully nuanced outline of my thoughts.

 

[Skux]

MRA are purposefully distracting the conversation *away* from women's rights as much as possible. That's pretty much the point of them. They want to see equal resources used to combat men's problems as are used to combat women's problems.

And of course it doesn't assume we can only address one issue at a time.

The quickest way to reach equality, is to focus on the disadvantages women have, until things threaten to swing back the other way.

MRAs whole tactic is to hijack any and all conversations about women's rights.

This makes no sense. Men and women's issues are connected. They're part of societal issues as a whole. You can't say "oh we're going to solve domestic violence for women" without bringing men into the solution.

 

[plagiarize]

This makes no sense. Men and women's issues are connected. They're part of societal issues as a whole. You can't say "oh we're going to solve domestic violence for women" without bringing men into the solution.

I didn't. I've tried to clarify my point with further posts.

 

[cubicle47b]

My first post was a reply to someone talking about there being a place for an advocacy group focused on men's issues. Please read my most recent post for a more detailed and hopefully nuanced outline of my thoughts.

I think you make a mistake when you assume that because the people in power are men they do a good job of addressing issues that men face.

 

[Principate]

Most of the time when people say "outrage culture" it isn't even directed at the communities and their grievances. But instead other people being dickheads on behalf of their grievances.

This is like the false dichotomy that any criticism of PC culture is just a thinly veiled want for the "halcyon days of racism." There are people like that and I do hate the phrase "PC Culture." But there are legit criticisms to be made as well. They don't all amount to bigotry.

Regardless of anything, though, it is rather unfortunate how much of this is drummed up by media hype on both sides. Clickbait and media of that nature do a lot to perpetuate this concept of eternal outrage.

But that's exactly what it is. Some people are dick heads, that's not going to change, some people will be dick heads about their beliefs. That's not going to change either. It's the most worthless whine ever. Complain specifically about the person and what their doing or don't bother.

 

[plagiarize]

I think you make a mistake when you assume that because the people in power are men that they do a good job of addressing issues that men face.

They do a better job than they do addressing the issues that women face. Or that black men face. Etc.

Are things getting worse for men? Honest question.

 

[Into]

Put people into conveniently labelled boxes, for your dismissal, and then watch as they do exactly the same to you.

 

[Chmpocalypse]

I think people on the right and Men's Rights Activists have many valid points in whatever we call this cultural battle that seems to be going on in the internet of today.

I'm sick of it, and I know neogaf doesn't necessarily engage in it, thankfully, but can we all agree that this oxymoron is moronic? This shorthand for certain people is too easily misused as 1. it is a silly misnomer and 2. Because as far as I know, there isn't an equivalent word from the left and feminists?

Can we agree to actually talk and listen?

"men's rights"

Fucking lol - you have all the rights by default, you stupid fucking assholes. Gain some perspective on reality already.

 

[Vampire On Titus]

But that's exactly what it is. Some people are dick heads, that's not going to change, some people will be dick heads about their beliefs. That's not going to change either. It's the most worthless whine ever. Complain specifically about the person and what their doing or don't bother.

I don't think it's wrong for people to complain about a fairly recent trend of people using or perverting progressive ideals to pre-suppose the moral high-ground and bully people. It's a very particular type of behavior and a bad one that I'm glad people are critical of.

There is plenty of complaints leveled at specific people. But I'm guessing you and I just disagree on this. I don't think it has to always be that or even should be.

 

[The Elite]

Obviously I'm speaking broadly when I say men and women. Right now the type of issues that get focused on are the ones that effect the type of people in government. Not exclusively the ones that only effect that type of person of course, but those ones get more focus than ones that don't particularly effect the type of person who makes up the government.

If a group was set up to focus on the issues that specifically effect black men, I'd have no problems with such a group. Because they would be bringing focus onto something that doesn't get enough focus today. Same with advocacy groups that want to highlight issues that most impact women.

Now if a group came along and said 'well if black men get an advocacy group, we're going to start one for white men' I'd be similarly against it. Because that group is already seeing more focus paid to it by the government, and an advocacy group trying to get the government to pay issues that only effect white men, would only distract and work against people fighting for equal thought and representation in society and law and what have you.

That's why I think an advocacy group aimed specifically at men's rights is only harmful.

But the truth is, issues which specifically effect men already get more government focus... because men make up the government. I don't think they single those issues out or anything... but I don't think they get ignored either in the same way as issues that pretty much only effect women or minorities. Similarly issues that don't effect white men but do effect black men get mostly ignored too.

The whole point of an advocacy group is to ensure that more of the governments attention is focused on a particular issue. That does happen at the cost of other things.

The problem with this is that you're choosing to ignore current relevant issues. And while I agree that a white male government absolute gives an advantage to white men there are certain issues not being addressed. We have a gaffer right now who is having his life destroyed because his ex-wife is gaming a legal system that, and that's a government institution, that is broken in cases of family law. There is no recourse for him. No advocacy group and one of his sole support solutions is a video game forum.

I am not saying that we should ignore any other issue to deal with this and we not advocate for hindering another movement in support of dealing with this but we can't sit around and wait a broken family law system to be dealt with until after we've checked off a bunch of other issues. We can't wait for the high suicide rate in males to be dealt with until we've solved every single women's issue. Guess what, we're always going to have these issues. Racism is always going to be a problem. Sexism is always going to be a problem. We can't wait until we solve one issue until we deal with another because we will be waiting literally forever.

I literally can count men's issues on one hand. We don't have much of anything to gripe about. As a white male I am not ignoring the fact that I have it pretty damn great. Still, for the issues we do have, there should always be a recourse. Someone to have a conversation with. A support structure. One that doesn't hurt any other group.

Unfortunately, these MRA types have basically destroyed any thought of that by spewing hate speech and advocating rape.

They do a better job than they do addressing the issues that women face. Or that black men face. Etc.

Are things getting worse for men? Honest question.

Something is wrong.

Let's talk about it.

And we can do it without ignoring Black Lives Matter, Violence Against Women and anything else you want to advocate for.

 

[psylah]

"Millennials", which I have never heard in anything but a disparaging manner.

 

[Principate]

I don't think it's wrong for people to complain about a fairly recent trend of people using or perverting progressive ideals to pre-suppose the moral high-ground and bully people. It's a very particular type of behavior and a bad one that I'm glad people are critical of.

There is plenty of complaints leveled at specific people. But I'm guessing you and I just disagree on this. I don't think it has to always be that or even should be.

That's not new, that's as old as humanity itself. Plenty of religions and religious people have been doing that for thousands of years, and it's not even unique to religion. The phrase "holier than thou" should ring a bell.

 

[entremet]

They do a better job than they do addressing the issues that women face. Or that black men face. Etc.

Are things getting worse for men? Honest question.

Depends on the type of man.

Race, social class, etc.

Just look at the Rust Belt--Cleveland, Detroit, and those major metros. Industry that has been mostly been fields where men were economically productive for decades have shrunk considerably.

Many of these lack skills and training for new jobs and the government generally doesn't care for them.

But if we're looking at Harvard Business School grads looking to work in Wall Street and Silicon Valley? Not so so much.

The former is more populous than the latter and their lack of economic productivity disastrous for those regions.

This is why I find your assessment a bit shallow.

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

I follow up here because I do enjoy the enlightening discussion I sometimes find here. I tend to engage in topics I want more experience with or care about. Sometimes splitting hairs to absurdity. It seems you do to, and take genuine concern with not just what is being discussed, but how it's being discussed. Because it does make a big difference. So I don't mean to put you on a back leg here, I don't mean to pass judgement or patronize. I fail myself all the time. You're bringing up some meta points in terms of discussion, so I thought I'd chip in while on the subject.

You previously choose to use "toxic masculinity" to not talk about all masculinity but a subset that is toxic by your definition. When people say sjw they aren't talking about socially progressive people. They are talking about people that throw candor out the window. People who are also toxic by their definition. Such as the "with us or against us" mentality.

What I'm so confused about is how you made that comment to be so apropos of yourself when it wasn't calling you or the likes of you out. At least not from my perspective. Do you identify yourself as a social justice warrior? I wouldn't think so. You went on to say you don't like these labels and you're not part of a culture war. But onto the garnering a label in this so called culture war. Well call it what you want, but you are part of a multi-faceted "great debate." We all work off of a frame of reference that we've formed, and even you draw distinctions between sides. Nobody said there were only two sides. But distinction exist, every makes them through their language. Do you mean to say you only ever act devil's advocate? I know you don't, but even in roles where we could easily distance ourselves from a position. People argue against us for the position we put ourselves in.

Even the "hey we found one." Are you being sarcastic? You've apparently labeled someone. You hedge, but then follow making a serious point, just in case the person is who you thought they were.

You make a lot of great points. It's hard to respond to dumb shit like "SJW" or "regressive left" because you end up in a place where the person has succeeded in distracting the conversation or just inserting confusion into everyone's meaning.

Like sometimes a person will point out that an "SJW" is being too aggressive, assumptive, or shitty in their argument, and they have a solid point, but you can't really continue the conversation on that path because it's already been poisoned by childishness. I think a lot of people don't even realize they're harming their own valid observation. You'll see this a lot in GAF bans, where people are like "but that other person did the same thing" when there's a wide gulf in the quality and thoughtfulness of the posts that they aren't able to see.

I'll gladly call myself a social justice warrior in response to being called one, but it's not something I'll ever actually call myself on my own, because it's a dismissive term meant to help simpler people put everyone in boxes they can understand. Its purpose as a pejorative is to allow a person who doesn't want to engage to hurdle past consideration and debate, so I'm not really sure what I can do to that poster I responded to other than ask if they're even being serious. I'm not familiar with them, so despite their contribution seeming like a childish name-calling post, I have to dig deeper just to get any actual conversation going. Though like usual, it seemed like a one and done sort of shitpost.

 

[Vampire On Titus]

That's not new, that's as old as humanity itself. Plenty of religions and religious people have been doing that for thousands of years, and it's not even unique to religion. The phrase "holier than thou" should ring a bell.

You're right absolutely right. Painted with a broad brush. But there's a particular demeanor and particular rhetoric that I'm fine with being critiqued without a specific target. A lot of it does come from this behavior typical of the religious right now manifesting in the left.

 

[Crocodile]

Obviously I'm speaking broadly when I say men and women. Right now the type of issues that get focused on are the ones that effect the type of people in government. Not exclusively the ones that only effect that type of person of course, but those ones get more focus than ones that don't particularly effect the type of person who makes up the government.

If a group was set up to focus on the issues that specifically effect black men, I'd have no problems with such a group. Because they would be bringing focus onto something that doesn't get enough focus today. Same with advocacy groups that want to highlight issues that most impact women.

Now if a group came along and said 'well if black men get an advocacy group, we're going to start one for white men' I'd be similarly against it. Because that group is already seeing more focus paid to it by the government, and an advocacy group trying to get the government to pay issues that only effect white men, would only distract and work against people fighting for equal thought and representation in society and law and what have you.

That's why I think an advocacy group aimed specifically at men's rights is only harmful.

But the truth is, issues which specifically effect men already get more government focus... because men make up the government. I don't think they single those issues out or anything... but I don't think they get ignored either in the same way as issues that pretty much only effect women or minorities. Similarly issues that don't effect white men but do effect black men get mostly ignored too.

The whole point of an advocacy group is to ensure that more of the governments attention is focused on a particular issue. That does happen at the cost of other things.

The difference between White men and Black men is based on a racial axis. Within the context of modern American society, I can't think of a single issue that negatively affects White men on a national level specifically because of their race. Multiple real issues have been brought up that do affect men specifically because of their gender on a national and international scale - even if that list is much shorter than the list of bullshit women have to put up with. If you believe that some of those issues facing men are due to "toxic masculinity" or patriarchy (and I think that is a fair argument to make) then having additional groups aside from just feminist groups also tackling the issue can only hasten our movement towards gender equality. It would mean more men would be on-board with the idea of toxic masculinity/patriarchy and thus more interested in ending it. Think of it as a pincer attack if you will. This isn't a zero-sum game in terms of either advocates or government resources to try to push for gender equality. That you keep pushing that narrative really does make it seem like you're saying the near equivalent of "We'll get around to antisemitism once we've fixed all the problems Black people have to put up with".

 

[hipsterpants]

I posted earlier in the thread, but I think "triggered" has to be the worst word. Maybe I'm incorrect here, but the word is supposed to refer to people with various kind of PTSD whenever something makes them recall a traumatic experience. Now it's just used as a replacement word for offended except it sounds worse.

 

[Morrigan Stark]

When people say sjw they aren't talking about socially progressive people.

I'm sorry but this is just not true at all. Look at how people use the word all over the internet. The vast majority simply uses it as a slur to describe anyone who is critical of bigotry.

 

[Henkka]

What's wrong with 'regressive left'? It's far better defined than SJW. We know who coined it and what they meant by it. It's even got a Wikipedia entry.

Edit: Oh wow, so does SJW.