-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Men rights and issues
- Thread starter SquiddyCracker
- Start date
- Status
Absolutely nothing is gained by inventing fancy sounding non-descriptive terms. Patriarchy at least implies something. You could replace the word "kyriarchy" in "the US is a kyriarchy" with "large clump of dirt" and nothing would be lost.
On another note:
I remember when this study came out. (I'm old!) The 8-1 number was widely publicized - the corrected number was not. Putting out wrong information then burying the correction later is a pretty scummy move and when people with vested interests do it it's usually intentional.
For a very long time a lot of feminist literature repeated the "fact" that 150,000 US women die a year of anorexia - something completely false. (Obviously)
During that time period a lot of this stuff was happening, with all sorts of damning "facts" being held up as evidence of something that later were quietly corrected or acknowledged as false. I think it's fair to say that a lost of feminist organizations played pretty loose with facts like these in part because there was an incentive to do so.
So to me Hoff Sommers is more right than wrong when she implies that some of these groups purposely mislead the public.
I don't think so because that would still give too much of an advantage to the primary bread winner in a marriage (whether male or female) if things started to go wrong. AND in the event that they divorced after the kid(s) left home a prenup would be further disadvantageous because the lesser earner (that is most LIKELY the primary caregiver of the child) would be older and thus even LESS able to earn a living going forward. I think prenups in general are a smart protection to want in the abstract, but in practice they're more sensible for older more established people anyway. Giving younger people a BUILT IN way to walk away and simply turn down a sum of money (which they may be able to re-qualify for with a future marriage) I think would make the problem worse.
There are issues with Men's rights, but they are extremely focused on the more developed societies, and mostly revolves about: 1- Divorce 2 - "positive discrimination" and 3 - Witness laws. While these issues are indeed minor when compared to the hardships and discrimination that exist towards women in many parts of the world (ablation, gender selective abortions, Saudi Arabia as a whole, etc), they are still real issues and should be properly adressed. My particular country (Spain) has some laws that goes beyond retarded on that aspect (and beyond the constitution, too, but that never mattered one bit to our politicians).
SquiddyCracker
Banned
In a marriage without kids I kinda disagree that a pre-nup would be essential to ensure that the non-bread winner wouldn't be thrown on the street, as you can still have alimony to help the second person back onto their own self-supportive feet. In a marriage with kids, I kinda agree with you, but question that the primary caregiver of the child would be the lesser earner (I understand what you're getting at and that this might be the case in practice, but that's one of the male issues previously presented in this thread that need to be rectified).
Personally, I prefer incentives to be of a positive nature - rewards rather than punishments.
That society would punish one partner for divorcing (as if the divorce itself isn't psychologically damaging itself) in order to incentivize them staying together just doesn't vibe well with me.
I have seen defence forced for pretty much everything on GAF but one of the things that surprised me most was when I heard women argue sincerely and with a straight face argue that it's just as difficult for a women to get laid as it is for a guy. If anyone cares enough I can find it.
If you read one of the NYTimes articles, you'll see this paragraph:
And the first paragraph is essentially what you're arguing. We must remember that the gap was historically small at the beginning, and that the real losses came from the way social conventions worked that women were the ones who sacrificed their career aspirations - even it was only relative to their potential and not in absolute terms. I'd expect to see men make up the gap and then some as women get older.
I would have liked to have seen more analysis on the why question, though. I know that there's sort of a presumption nowadays among the MRM set that the issue is that we've tilted too far towards helping girls and now we are hurting boys, but I think that there are other explanations for the issues males are facing (e.g. the pattern of socially situating masculinity as anti-intellectualism, which is something I've encountered often). I don't know whether the suggestion of differing rates of brain development are a valid explanation, as studies purporting to show this that I have seen have tended to underplay the effects of environment and experience on how the brain develops. And this is just meant more as a curiosity than an argument, but I do wonder what is different about boys who do read and write comfortably from the beginning of their school days. Is it something that is different about us? Is it something about the way our parents raised us? I'm not sure, though I lean towards the latter in my particular case.
I think with any policy, as with any CHANGE in policy there are going to be positives and negatives. I think on balance even if the "edge" goes to the person in a lesser position currently rather than finding a better balance I guess I see less of a reason to be significantly upset about it.
I think that the incentives being positive sounds good - I just worry that something like that gives more incentive to having an affair, divorcing your spouse, and then getting the SAME benefit you would have gotten from your first marriage in your NEXT marriage because perhaps that one will "work" better. So I think in practice I don't see how it works to prevent something like that.
ElectricBlue187
Member
From a poster labeling a topic as misogynistic without even reading it. Standards of discourse indeed.
Steve Youngblood
Member
Yeah, the bolded is pretty much my take. I'm not really certain that I understand just yet what the argument is for suggesting that curriculum would be biased towards educating females more than males. The only plausible suggestion that really leaps forth at me is possibly the lack of male teachers, particularly in elementary school. But even then, I'm not sure what conclusion we would be working towards in an effort to ascertain precisely why this would be problematic for boys in school.
Should we infer that female teachers are more biased towards educating girls as opposed to boys? Or are we supposed to worry that boys lack educational role models of their own and feel alienated that -- in at atmosphere dominated by female presence -- education seems as though it's more of a girls' pursuit? I'm very reluctant to buy into either suggestion without more research into the matter.
I know Jado had a list of books on the topic arguing the case, but I know nothing of the content or credibility of that literature.
Been reading this thread as it's been going, I've got a question.
What're peoples' stances on a group like Fathers 4 Justice? Not necessarily their methods because historically they haven't exactly gone about it the right way, but more the points that they stand for. It seems people don't agree with MRM groups but F4J are focused more on a specific issue.
What're peoples' stances on a group like Fathers 4 Justice? Not necessarily their methods because historically they haven't exactly gone about it the right way, but more the points that they stand for. It seems people don't agree with MRM groups but F4J are focused more on a specific issue.
I posted this earlier --
Great article about a panel of scientists discussing the research on possible differences in the brains of the two sexes. Below, you can see scientists outright admitting they have been pressured (by lobbyists or powerful women's rights groups?) from publishing work that shows differences between male/female brains that directly influence how each learns and behaves from birth. The article makes a strong case that both nature/nurture play important roles in shaping who boys and girls are. They even criticize guys like Leonard Sax of exaggerating the data, but not of actually being wrong. There are ten points in the article altogether stating that neither POV can be ignored over the other.
Sex on the Brain
Are boys’ brains different from girls’ brains? Scientists debate the question.
http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...ink_about_sex_differences_in_psychology_.html
1. Ideology. All the panelists recognized that sex-difference research could be abused to justify sexism. But Larry Cahill, a behavioral neurobiologist at the University of California-Irvine, raised the opposite concern: His colleagues are so afraid of being called “neurosexists” that they’ve refused to study or acknowledge differences. This anxiety about lending credence to sexism was manifest on the panel, as three of the presenters repeatedly emphasized similarities and downplayed differences. Afterward, they were challenged by two female scientists in the audience who called the aversion to studying innate differences anti-scientific and an impediment to understanding mental illness in women. The exchange, in which one panelist repeatedly portrayed sex-difference research as a waste of time, confirmed the problem: Fear of sexism has produced a bias against conceding sex differences, which gets in the way of frank discussion and investigation.
2. Monocausality. Melissa Hines, a psychologist at the University of Cambridge, proposed a good rule for screening studies and news reports: Beware any explanation that relies on a single factor. Hormones matter, but so does socialization. A study in animals might illuminate the role of genes, but it won’t capture the effects of culture on humans. Conversely, anyone who dismisses boy-girl differences as cultural artifacts (the panelists criticized Cordelia Fine’s Delusions of Gender in particular) isn’t accounting for similar patterns in animals, such as research showing that male monkeys prefer to play more with cars and less with dolls than female monkeys do. Hines also mentioned a male-female gap in “maze performance” among rodents. You can’t blame that on society.
Great article about a panel of scientists discussing the research on possible differences in the brains of the two sexes. Below, you can see scientists outright admitting they have been pressured (by lobbyists or powerful women's rights groups?) from publishing work that shows differences between male/female brains that directly influence how each learns and behaves from birth. The article makes a strong case that both nature/nurture play important roles in shaping who boys and girls are. They even criticize guys like Leonard Sax of exaggerating the data, but not of actually being wrong. There are ten points in the article altogether stating that neither POV can be ignored over the other.
Sex on the Brain
Are boys’ brains different from girls’ brains? Scientists debate the question.
http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...ink_about_sex_differences_in_psychology_.html
1. Ideology. All the panelists recognized that sex-difference research could be abused to justify sexism. But Larry Cahill, a behavioral neurobiologist at the University of California-Irvine, raised the opposite concern: His colleagues are so afraid of being called “neurosexists” that they’ve refused to study or acknowledge differences. This anxiety about lending credence to sexism was manifest on the panel, as three of the presenters repeatedly emphasized similarities and downplayed differences. Afterward, they were challenged by two female scientists in the audience who called the aversion to studying innate differences anti-scientific and an impediment to understanding mental illness in women. The exchange, in which one panelist repeatedly portrayed sex-difference research as a waste of time, confirmed the problem: Fear of sexism has produced a bias against conceding sex differences, which gets in the way of frank discussion and investigation.
2. Monocausality. Melissa Hines, a psychologist at the University of Cambridge, proposed a good rule for screening studies and news reports: Beware any explanation that relies on a single factor. Hormones matter, but so does socialization. A study in animals might illuminate the role of genes, but it won’t capture the effects of culture on humans. Conversely, anyone who dismisses boy-girl differences as cultural artifacts (the panelists criticized Cordelia Fine’s Delusions of Gender in particular) isn’t accounting for similar patterns in animals, such as research showing that male monkeys prefer to play more with cars and less with dolls than female monkeys do. Hines also mentioned a male-female gap in “maze performance” among rodents. You can’t blame that on society.
You can define your club as inclusive of all right-minded individuals but that doesn't mean that all right-minded individuals want to be a part of your club.
radios shipping overview
Member
So what I'm seeing here is that the men's rights platform consists of a valid body of issues (family law) with a lot of rare, minor, and likely spurious issues tacked on.
Can we just have a thread about family law (with a possible thread on issues with male performance in education and attendant norms and gender roles) instead of giving people an excuse to be disingenuous and make their personal insecurities into societal issues?
Can we just have a thread about family law (with a possible thread on issues with male performance in education and attendant norms and gender roles) instead of giving people an excuse to be disingenuous and make their personal insecurities into societal issues?
D
Deleted member 47027
Unconfirmed Member
Those of us interested in those inequalities would do well to distance ourselves from the big umbrella of "men's rights" and only work on which issues we feel need addressing, instead of a catch-all from a group that we may (and do) disagree with on a lot of other issues.
It's not a bias with the teacher, but rather that the school system itself was reformed in a manner that is counter-intuitive to boys' natural preferences to learning. All of us are apparently too young to remember what early schooling was like for prior generations of adults, but apparently there was very little emphasis on reading and writing in kindergarten, and a lot of hands-on activities (painting, building with blocks) and outdoors time. Nowadays, kids in kinder spend much more time sitting indoors quietly with heavy emphasis on reading and writing... and they're assigned daily homework. In Sax's book, he brings up case studies involving a number of parents whose children (overwhelmingly boys) cannot adapt to this system as quickly as others. When they can't sit still and quiet for hours, they're reprimanded as trouble-makers, medication is sometimes recommended, or they're placed in the "special/play/B" group. This last one is surprisingly tragic -- many of the 5-year olds studied were fully aware they were in the "stupid" group and remarked that the teacher hated them, setting them up to hate and underperform at school for years to come with this lasting negative outlook.
This is my thought: under-performance leads to masculinity = anti-intellectualism, not the other way around. The boys who can't keep up early on become bitter and angry at the minority of boys (so-called nerds or "fags") who show equal aptitude to the girls and it snowballs from there until they barely graduate or drop out. Until I read of all this, I was upset that my 5-year old nephew can't read (he hasn't started school yet). Apparently most boys can't read proficiently until 1st or 2nd grade, when specific areas of the brain develop to the level seen in girls.
Anecdotal, but I could read, write and draw well, for a kid, for as long as I can remember. This appears to have been the exception as my early school teachers would repeatedly point this out at PT meetings as unusual, excellent, etc. I remember being 6 years old and helping my longtime childhood friend/neighbor (half a year younger) to read and write because he pretty much couldn't until he was a little older. He wasn't dumb or troubled either.
I would say they share some similar goals, but have different priorities.
I had discussions with my former boss in the office for equality, and while she agreed with me on many issues, she didn't see them as relevant as (young) men do. Totally different priorities.
Let's look at these issues in my country:
Family law: In theory, both parents share the responsibility since the new law, but in reality it's still the mother who decides how and where the children grow up. My lawyer friend tells me the new law actually makes things worse because it isn't clear how to share the responsibility under the new law.
Employee rights: Top priority is the discrimination of female workers. They got paid less for equal work. However, discrimination towards men is overlooked: It is broadly accepted for women to do part-time or reduced the work because of personal preferences or family issues (taking care of parents, pregnancy), but men risk their job by asking for part-time. Then you have employers who prefer women for certain jobs, working with children is riskier for men, and one of the reason why men's life expectancy is shorter is because they work too much, have more stress (at work) and health issues because of heavy work.
Mandatory military service for men: Many women don't even have an opinion for this issue. It's frustrating, because they basically say: "It's your problem, deal with it!" No real support for (young) men who want to change this politics.
Education: Boys are really bad in schools, and the best you get are pity for them. We have yet to work on real solutions for the current situation.
Crime & violence: While the majority of offenders are men, most victims are also men. Unfortunately, the policy is centered towards women, while often ignoring men as victims (of crime in general).
While the feminist movement is necessarily and fights for more equality for both sexes, the men rights movement is still legitimate. The main problem is, that the conservatives misuse the movement for their own goal, while the men rights movement doesn't distance itself enough from the right parties.
It is certainly feminist. However whether it is egalitarian or not is another issue.
Personally I don't like quota's and think they tend to not be egalitarian and they cause some additional problems with few possible exheptions of cases where the positive outewhehing their negatives and they are a good idea. Also any pollicy with quotas should come with certain goals and an expiration date. They are definetly not a given that they are by defintion and certainly egalitarian, they are among the pollicies that are more debatable.
Omegasquash
Member
This thread...
Steve Youngblood
Member
Well, it's certainly a theory. I don't mean to be combative, but I must say that I'm slightly skeptical of both the initial premise (that boys apparently develop more slowly than girls in areas like reading) and the conclusion that this has lasting implications all the way through higher education and the pursuit of post graduate degrees.
But, my own skepticism aside, let's grant that this is true. Is the theory that this curriculum was developed for and continues to be in place specifically because it benefits girls and levels the playing field? Or is that just an unfortunate side-effect of an otherwise unbiased effort to improve curriculum across the board? Specifically, I'm just asking is this method of teaching actually intended to help women out to the detriment of men?
Jake McLargeHuge
Banned
Hey, what's this thing about men's righ......oh......oh my word
Yes, even if they don't know about that.
The non mysoginistic issues actualy happen because of preassures society put on men to be ... manly.
for example :
Society's preassure that is humiliating for a man to say that they were beaten by a woman or things like that happens because women is seen as much less human beings as men...
Parental laws all are based on the fact that the woman must take care of the kids while the man brings home the money, wich only makes sense in the 50's....
Prejudice agains't male teaches happens because it is always told that is the women who must teach the kids while te man is out working ...
The diference in education can be explained in MANY ways.
Women are educated to be more organized and go out less than their brothers, women knows that they need a better education if they want to get as much money as their male co-workers ... and lets not even get on how society tries to push women away from carrers like enginner, math, science and coding for example ...
If society treats women in the same way as men, NOTHING of this (and much more) will be a problem.
Even stuff like women living more than men it is shown to b related on this =P
Also, things like this joke (I hope) below
I am at work so I can't really go on at length, but a couple things that bother me about the explanation. It doesn't seem to account for the possible effect that differing treatment of boys and girls can have on those things (specifically impulse control and ability to sit still for long hours) and seems to have an essentialist bent of "Boys like to learn this way." I didn't. Many other boys didn't have these issues. What is the explanation for us?
But I might be missing something.
In my own anecdotal experiences, girls tend to be culturally more receptive to learning at young ages while among boys there are some who are more wild and less attendive at classrooms . However when it comes to the best students there are always males there as well as females.
At higher education, there is not such disrepancy and men not being young boys anymore and being the ones who take part in higher education are quite more mature.
Obviously between people of both genders there is a variety but you can have observable trends. Having an education that is the best fit for the students is a smart way to go although perharps changing the behavior of students themselves might be another alternative but it isn;t that easy and simple and say why can't boys be culturally the way we want them to be. It certainly desserves thinking by those responsible on how you can teach boys in the best way for them or make them more interested. And same for girls. But again it might not be so easy as simply changing the way things are taught being the solution.
But attention on how to improve boy's performance and the factors related to it, deserves to be given.
At higher education, there is not such disrepancy and men not being young boys anymore and being the ones who take part in higher education are quite more mature.
Obviously between people of both genders there is a variety but you can have observable trends. Having an education that is the best fit for the students is a smart way to go although perharps changing the behavior of students themselves might be another alternative but it isn;t that easy and simple and say why can't boys be culturally the way we want them to be. It certainly desserves thinking by those responsible on how you can teach boys in the best way for them or make them more interested. And same for girls. But again it might not be so easy as simply changing the way things are taught being the solution.
But attention on how to improve boy's performance and the factors related to it, deserves to be given.
You'll have to be more specific in your question.
Jake McLargeHuge
Banned
Was my 2nd post deleted? If so, my apologies.
Yes, no need for poking people like that.
Devolution
Member
The explanation also doesn't talk about how well girls and boys did before girls excelled so much better than boys. Is this just a natural inflation because girls were held back and told they were stupid for so long? Do their own mothers care more about encouraging their endeavors? Is this all to do with smaller classrooms and more individual attention? Other than keeping girls back what was it about past classroom etiquette that helped keep boys better? Was there anything at all?
Steve Youngblood
Member
Just so it's clear, I'm in agreement with you. I'm honestly just trying to understand what the argument is that people are making wherein it is asserted that young boys are put into a disadvantageous position. I'm also trying to understand whether or not the theory asserts that this bias towards young girls is intentional or coincidental.
As it stands, I'm not convinced. However, I will allow for the possibility that my gut instincts could be way off, as I'm by no means a child psychologist nor an expert on education.
Oh, I know. I know it seems like I only reply to people I disagree with, though.
No, it wasn't created to help girls over boys. Classroom reform involving increasing levels of quiet sitting, lecturing, homework, and testing just happened for reasons I haven't looked into it. The consensus is that boys, overall, are handling this much more poorly than girls. The latter aren't necessarily thriving at this terrible setup, but they're tolerating it better. Boys are also much more likely to be prescribed medication (powerful anti-depressants) as a result of not quickly adapting to this education model.
Just to be clear: I didn't fit into this "troubled boy" example, but a number of my friends did.
SquiddyCracker
Banned
It's worth pointing out that boys haven't gotten worse in school, girls have just gotten better:
Why boys haven't improved at the same rate is the question.
I think Jado has put forth some interesting explanations, but I see an environmental cause as an explanation as well.
Either way, I would certainly like to see whether an alternative learning environment might help boys improve,
Why boys haven't improved at the same rate is the question.
I think Jado has put forth some interesting explanations, but I see an environmental cause as an explanation as well.
Either way, I would certainly like to see whether an alternative learning environment might help boys improve,
Devolution
Member
One of the theories I've read mentioned some bullshit about how boys aren't able to be rambunctious and a majority of the teachers during elementary being women doesn't help. But when I read that I remembered that it isn't just this generation that elementary school teachers were primarily women. Then I remembered it was probably put forth by people like Hoff Summers who are frankly, full of shit.
It's worth pointing out that boys haven't gotten worse in school, girls have just gotten better:
Why boys haven't improved at the same rate is the question.
I think Jado has put forth some interesting explanations, but I see an environmental cause as an explanation as well.
Either way, I would certainly like to see whether an alternative learning environment might help boys improve,
The chart shows stagnation for males, which makes no sense considering the total US population and the total number of higher education institutions have greatly increased in the last few decades. Scroll down a bit to see the chart here.
http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=98
And I believe the percentages for men continue to slow/dip, while women continue to enroll in greater numbers. Some colleges are already at 70% female enrollment.
If I am remembering correctly (I don't have the book with me), primary education was around 2/3rds women even during the 1870s - and the same hand-wringing over their effect on boys (and their masculinity) was happening then. If there are changes in schools that are impacting boys more than girls, I don't think that the now near-ubiquity of female teachers is among them.
Bay Maximus
Banned
All this time, the (wo)man has been keeping me down.
Fuck you, Oprah Winfrey.
On a more serious note, the revolution will be televised....On SpikeTV 8/7C
Men's rights movement.....lol.
Fuck you, Oprah Winfrey.
On a more serious note, the revolution will be televised....On SpikeTV 8/7C
Men's rights movement.....lol.
Devolution
Member
Yes, not to mention the catholic schools which churned out tons of scholastic minded and smart boys. Most of that teaching is by nuns with rulers though lol.
SquiddyCracker
Banned
I only found this, and it doesn't really show a "dip" anywhere. Females are overtaking males
It might be part of a larger trend, or just be a temporary event. In the United States there have for an example been numerous large-scale wars between 1999 and 2009 that would probably affect the number of males who joined the military versus applying for university.
Steve Youngblood
Member
Can't some of the statistics in regards to male vs. female enrollment and post-graduate success be explained by the shift in career opportunities available and expectations of women in the modern era. To clarify, what I mean is that wouldn't an expectation for women to pull down career wages almost necessitate higher education? On the men's side, my gut reaction is that -- though these jobs may be disappearing over time -- it seems as though there are any number of trade jobs, manufacturing, and so on that one can pursue.
So, over time, as women are increasingly encouraged not to simply be home makers who take care of the kids while their husband brings home the bacon, my assumption is that college is practically a necessity for women.
Of course, I could be way off on this one.
So, over time, as women are increasingly encouraged not to simply be home makers who take care of the kids while their husband brings home the bacon, my assumption is that college is practically a necessity for women.
Of course, I could be way off on this one.
WorriedCitizen
Member
I've checked feminist blogs and websites for the last two hours to see if the so often here repeated claim "feminism covers men's rights issues" is true. I didn't see a single article specificaly focussing on a men's rights issue. Not ruling out that such articles exist or that some feminists genuinely care about it but it's obvious to me after checking the sites that it doesn't seem to play much of a role in the grand scheme of things. Not asking for a 50-50 representation of mens rights issues but surely at least regularely something should pop up that concerns itself with it for a movement that covers it according to some users here?
In fact after digging a little deeper i found a statement on a feminist FAQ that encouraged men to create their own spaces for discussion of men's rights issues. (then why the reflex like ridicule evertime a men's right issue is even mentioned?)
The closest that i found during these two hours regarding men's rights was something about verbal harrasment of homosexuals and non masculine men which was mentioned in the context of verbal harrasement of women.
There is no denial that feminism focusses first and foremost on women's rights issues, which is fine in and of itself. But with that in mind it appears severely dishonest to proclaim that feminism is the natural home for everyone interested in gender equality issues.
In fact after digging a little deeper i found a statement on a feminist FAQ that encouraged men to create their own spaces for discussion of men's rights issues. (then why the reflex like ridicule evertime a men's right issue is even mentioned?)
The closest that i found during these two hours regarding men's rights was something about verbal harrasment of homosexuals and non masculine men which was mentioned in the context of verbal harrasement of women.
There is no denial that feminism focusses first and foremost on women's rights issues, which is fine in and of itself. But with that in mind it appears severely dishonest to proclaim that feminism is the natural home for everyone interested in gender equality issues.
Devolution
Member
It could also be an affect of girls and women doing better and boys/men not being told over and over that they absolutely have to be the breadwinner. It also explains the delays in settling down for my generation.
Feminism is the natural ideology for gender equality issues. That doesn't mean most feminist hemispheres are going to focus on men's issues, which is exactly why they say that men should do it for themselves. Unless equality for the genders is strictly women's work too. Plus it's a bit disingenuous don't you think, for all of these issues to solely be addressed for men by women. Take some initiative.
Steve Youngblood
Member
There is that possibility as well.
This is because you don't see then as men's rights when they actualy are.
As severly explained here, praticaly all the main probelms men face happens BECAUSE of the same expectations that say that women are lower than men, so therefore, men should expect to be brave, stronger, emotionles and care only about himself, since the contrary atributes are "feminine" atributes and are therefore bad.
Show me a feminist article and I will show you how men can benefit the question
Devolution
Member
We might see more and more aspirations to be a househusband, another dip, and then maybe they will level out together. Who knows. The idea that it's biology at the forefront will always make me skeptical considering how much socialization can and does affect how people do in life.
I think you've misunderstood the claim somewhat. I would not claim that feminists spend equal time on issues men face. I only claim that feminism as a concept (and adopting this to the study of masculinities) can address the issues men face as men. You're right that most feminist blogs you find are going to have very limited coverage of men's issues. It tends to be male feminists, at least in my experience, that place a more significant emphasis on male issues. Female feminists tend not to make the case for how things can benefit men, unless they're specifically challenged on the fact. But as Platy said, in most instances you should be able to read an article and see a way in which men would benefit either directly or indirectly, even if it might not be explicitly argued.
And I don't know which blog you were looking at, but I like this entry from Finally, A Feminism 101 blog:
Michael Flood [XY-Online]
Although the following advice is from a piece specifically addressing the mens rights movement, the excerpted parts are just as suited to be general advice to pro-feminist men:
Although the following advice is from a piece specifically addressing the mens rights movement, the excerpted parts are just as suited to be general advice to pro-feminist men:
(1) Assert a feminist-supportive and male-positive perspective.
Men such as ourselves, men with a concern for mens issues and a sympathy for feminism, should be trying as hard as possible to take up space in the public arena and to affect social and political relations. We should be writing letters to the editor, lobbying politicians, sending submissions, being interviewed, phoning talkback, plugging XY, holding meetings, forming alliances, getting funding, doing deals and shaking hands.
One point of all this is to create an alternative voice on gender issues that is specifically male. Of course it is essential that women take up as much space as possible too, but pro-feminist men have a particular role we can play, and ironically, sometimes we may be listened to more because we are male. We need to show that anti-feminist men do not speak for all men. [...]
(2) TAKE up mens rights issues, but differently.
[...] We need to take up the issues about which mens rights men are vocal, offering an alternative analysis of their character and causes. We have to try to reach the men who otherwise might join mens rights organisations and in some cases who have their pain turned into anti-women backlash. Doing so will be challenging, and it may involve questioning aspects of the feminist-informed analyses we have held so far. I believe that a recognition of areas of mens pain and even disadvantage is compatible with a feminist understanding (that is, an understanding based on a commitment to gender equality and justice), but it may take some reworking for this compatibility to be realised. [...]
(4) Set up services.
Whether the issue is divorce or mens health, we need to provide feminist-informed or at the very least feminist-neutral (and of course male-positive) services and resources for men. If men who have gone through painful divorces and messy custody proceedings, men who are hurting and confused, can find access to such services, they will be able to work through this in ways that are healthy and safe. In fact, I believe that this is happening in Brisbane, as a coalition of womens and community groups respond to the Mens Rights Agency and the Hillcrest murders.
Men such as ourselves, men with a concern for mens issues and a sympathy for feminism, should be trying as hard as possible to take up space in the public arena and to affect social and political relations. We should be writing letters to the editor, lobbying politicians, sending submissions, being interviewed, phoning talkback, plugging XY, holding meetings, forming alliances, getting funding, doing deals and shaking hands.
One point of all this is to create an alternative voice on gender issues that is specifically male. Of course it is essential that women take up as much space as possible too, but pro-feminist men have a particular role we can play, and ironically, sometimes we may be listened to more because we are male. We need to show that anti-feminist men do not speak for all men. [...]
(2) TAKE up mens rights issues, but differently.
[...] We need to take up the issues about which mens rights men are vocal, offering an alternative analysis of their character and causes. We have to try to reach the men who otherwise might join mens rights organisations and in some cases who have their pain turned into anti-women backlash. Doing so will be challenging, and it may involve questioning aspects of the feminist-informed analyses we have held so far. I believe that a recognition of areas of mens pain and even disadvantage is compatible with a feminist understanding (that is, an understanding based on a commitment to gender equality and justice), but it may take some reworking for this compatibility to be realised. [...]
(4) Set up services.
Whether the issue is divorce or mens health, we need to provide feminist-informed or at the very least feminist-neutral (and of course male-positive) services and resources for men. If men who have gone through painful divorces and messy custody proceedings, men who are hurting and confused, can find access to such services, they will be able to work through this in ways that are healthy and safe. In fact, I believe that this is happening in Brisbane, as a coalition of womens and community groups respond to the Mens Rights Agency and the Hillcrest murders.
Devolution
Member
All this is well and good but seriously not enough "male" feminists are out there telling other men who fall into MRA type bitterness what feminism advocates for them. Nor are they setting up blogs and forums (that I know of) that are as popular as the MRM/MRA stuff.
- Status