Declaration of war

[Cherry de Voured]

I should point out that I in no way meant to make it sound like these attitudes were only the attitudes of men. They're not. Nor are they only harmful for women, they're incredibly damaging to men. When it comes to belittling women who do seek out casual sex, women can be just as vile - as any teenage victim of bullying will tell you - and women's magazines and the like further perpetuate - at least in my opinion - that women and sex are somehow these two newly-introduced concepts that were once thought incompatible.

We may not like to hold these attitudes personally, and personally, I don't know anyone who really has these attitudes (at least not openly). But there's also the "slut" vs "player" problem - again, this is damaging to both genders, because it demonises females who enjoy rumpy-pumpy, but also further perpetuates this line of thinking that a man is untrustworthy in a relationship unless he's 'tied down', or that it's somehow shameful for a man to be a virgin after a certain age.

It's like this absurd ridiculous vicious circle. The attitudes cease to be as prevalent, but the 'aftershocks' of such attitudes continue - even if it's all self-imposed pressure to be a certain way because of an "expectation" which has stopped being there - I suppose that's why being vocal about it is quite important. It's starting to unravel - I agree with you, Si, things are moving fast - but these attitudes do exist, and sometimes only become apparent in an unexpected moment. I remember a female friend telling me that she once took a guy home from a date, and he couldn't believe his luck - pulled a girl who goes 'all the way' on the first date. Marvellous. Anyway, they got down to it, had a great time, and it came to the inevitable post-sex talk, and the talk of previous partners. Now, in all honesty, this girl has had her fair share of men. Doesn't boast or brag, but if you ask her, she'll be honest and upfront about it. And so had he.

Now on the surface, he was a lovely, genuine, charismatic guy. But he couldn't handle the fact that she'd had so many partners - whilst being completely oblivious to the fact that anything he could accuse her of, or anything he felt, could be applied just as equally in reverse. Now, I'm not saying this was due to some huge, misogynistic urge from deep inside of his psyche, probably nothing more than him feeling a little insecure, what with all the potential 'rivals' for bedroom performance scores. But there's a double-standard there, and there's nothing wrong with highlighting that, because it's quite pertinent.

Other double standards, like the expectation of women to be naturally wonderful mothers because - well, women are women, right? - isn't just a kick in the arse for every woman that doesn't want to be a mother, or can't be a naturally great mother - but it's also a kick in the arse for every man who is, or wants to, stay at home with his kids, to every man who has had to go and take a job far away from his family in order to 'provide' in his role as father, for every man who has unfairly lost access to his kids.

There's a bit of an issue here in that far too often gender-topics then become gender-wars: men vs women, and it becomes some ridiculous 'Suffering Top Trumps' where both sides try and make out they're the most hard done by. But the reality is, it's a pathetic human problem that we'd all benefit from sorting. That's why I find myself annoyed by deliberately divisive images, pictures, etc with nothing to say about it. It's fine to point out the double-standards, as long as you can point out what the double-standards are, why perhaps they're there, and what can be done - again, this is on both sides. Otherwise, it's a case of 'what's your fucking point?' and you just make yourself look like a complete and utter cunt.

[Si_Crewe]

It's like this absurd ridiculous vicious circle. The attitudes cease to be as prevalent, but the 'aftershocks' of such attitudes continue - even if it's all self-imposed pressure to be a certain way because of an "expectation" which has stopped being there - I suppose that's why being vocal about it is quite important. It's starting to unravel - I agree with you, Si, things are moving fast - but these attitudes do exist, and sometimes only become apparent in an unexpected moment. I remember a female friend telling me that she once took a guy home from a date, and he couldn't believe his luck - pulled a girl who goes 'all the way' on the first date. Marvellous. Anyway, they got down to it, had a great time, and it came to the inevitable post-sex talk, and the talk of previous partners. Now, in all honesty, this girl has had her fair share of men. Doesn't boast or brag, but if you ask her, she'll be honest and upfront about it. And so had he.

Now on the surface, he was a lovely, genuine, charismatic guy. But he couldn't handle the fact that she'd had so many partners - whilst being completely oblivious to the fact that anything he could accuse her of, or anything he felt, could be applied just as equally in reverse. Now, I'm not saying this was due to some huge, misogynistic urge from deep inside of his psyche, probably nothing more than him feeling a little insecure, what with all the potential 'rivals' for bedroom performance scores. But there's a double-standard there, and there's nothing wrong with highlighting that, because it's quite pertinent.

Another balanced and insightful post. I'm only chopping bits out for the sake of relevance to my reply. Hope you don't mind.

The difference in attitude toward various things - men who masturbate are losers while women who do it are "empowered", men who want to stay at home and look after the kids are losers but it's commendable for a woman to do it, men who fuck anything with a pulse are studs while women who do the same are sluts - all probably have a basis in historic prejudices.

The thing is - and I freely admit that I tend to consider this stuff from the POV of being sceptical of 3rd-wave feminism - is that whenever these sorts of stereotypes crop up they're usually condemned (by feminists) as being a sign of "toxic masculinity" and the solution is (drum-roll).... Feminism.
Apparently, if all men gave up their awful masculine prejudices and adopted feminist attitudes then it'd fix everything.

If we take a look at some of these stereotypes, more often than not it seems like men are usually congratulated for their traditional characteristics.
Get heaps of sex? good on ya'.
Make loads of money? You're a star!
All your mates look up to you? What a hero!
Always get your own way? You're the man!

When I see 3rd-wave feminists whining about "toxic masculinity", they seem to be suggesting that we should abandon all these "male" characteristics and, instead, applaud things that they (the feminists) deem desirable characteristics.
Firstly, I doubt the sincerity of this idea. I suspect that, in reality, they're just trying to "move the goalposts" so that none of the stuff men are traditionally good at remains worthy of praise.
More importantly, though, I think they're rather missing the point.
It's not the characteristic, itself, that's necessarily a good thing but the positive reactions to those things IS a good thing.
Rather than trying to change what we consider impressive characteristics (something that I doubt is really possible) would it not be better to simply applaud the SAME characteristics in both men AND women?

Honestly, I tend o think that there's probably far less historical prejudice applied by gender than people think.
I'd be willing to bet that, for example, the stereotype that says promiscuous women are sluts is propagated as widely by women as men or the one that says it's commendable for women to stay at home and look after kids is propagated by women who're justifying a lifestyle they enjoy.

I keep saying the same thing but times are changing pretty quickly.
These days, for example, I'm over the fucking moon when a family still consists of 2 parents - one who goes out to work and one who brings up the kids - regardless of which is which.

[Robocop]

Hmm, maybe I was slightly premature and it IS possible to have an adult and objective debate on this on here, without it descending into name calling, baseless accusations or internet rage.

I'm not sure if Cherry's been nicking some of my lines and arguments though, especially the comments on it always becoming a gender war/ male vs female. I've always said we need to focus on the bad on both 'sides' and call out the idiots regardless of gender. This rarely if ever seems to happen.

That aside, there are some very interesting posts, and points. Refreshing to see.

[SandMan]

[Robocop]

[Cherry de Voured]

It's like this absurd ridiculous vicious circle. The attitudes cease to be as prevalent, but the 'aftershocks' of such attitudes continue - even if it's all self-imposed pressure to be a certain way because of an "expectation" which has stopped being there - I suppose that's why being vocal about it is quite important. It's starting to unravel - I agree with you, Si, things are moving fast - but these attitudes do exist, and sometimes only become apparent in an unexpected moment. I remember a female friend telling me that she once took a guy home from a date, and he couldn't believe his luck - pulled a girl who goes 'all the way' on the first date. Marvellous. Anyway, they got down to it, had a great time, and it came to the inevitable post-sex talk, and the talk of previous partners. Now, in all honesty, this girl has had her fair share of men. Doesn't boast or brag, but if you ask her, she'll be honest and upfront about it. And so had he.

Now on the surface, he was a lovely, genuine, charismatic guy. But he couldn't handle the fact that she'd had so many partners - whilst being completely oblivious to the fact that anything he could accuse her of, or anything he felt, could be applied just as equally in reverse. Now, I'm not saying this was due to some huge, misogynistic urge from deep inside of his psyche, probably nothing more than him feeling a little insecure, what with all the potential 'rivals' for bedroom performance scores. But there's a double-standard there, and there's nothing wrong with highlighting that, because it's quite pertinent.

Another balanced and insightful post. I'm only chopping bits out for the sake of relevance to my reply. Hope you don't mind.

The difference in attitude toward various things - men who masturbate are losers while women who do it are "empowered", men who want to stay at home and look after the kids are losers but it's commendable for a woman to do it, men who fuck anything with a pulse are studs while women who do the same are sluts - all probably have a basis in historic prejudices.

The thing is - and I freely admit that I tend to consider this stuff from the POV of being sceptical of 3rd-wave feminism - is that whenever these sorts of stereotypes crop up they're usually condemned (by feminists) as being a sign of "toxic masculinity" and the solution is (drum-roll).... Feminism.
Apparently, if all men gave up their awful masculine prejudices and adopted feminist attitudes then it'd fix everything.

If we take a look at some of these stereotypes, more often than not it seems like men are usually congratulated for their traditional characteristics.
Get heaps of sex? good on ya'.
Make loads of money? You're a star!
All your mates look up to you? What a hero!
Always get your own way? You're the man!

When I see 3rd-wave feminists whining about "toxic masculinity", they seem to be suggesting that we should abandon all these "male" characteristics and, instead, applaud things that they (the feminists) deem desirable characteristics.
Firstly, I doubt the sincerity of this idea. I suspect that, in reality, they're just trying to "move the goalposts" so that none of the stuff men are traditionally good at remains worthy of praise.
More importantly, though, I think they're rather missing the point.
It's not the characteristic, itself, that's necessarily a good thing but the positive reactions to those things IS a good thing.
Rather than trying to change what we consider impressive characteristics (something that I doubt is really possible) would it not be better to simply applaud the SAME characteristics in both men AND women?

Honestly, I tend o think that there's probably far less historical prejudice applied by gender than people think.
I'd be willing to bet that, for example, the stereotype that says promiscuous women are sluts is propagated as widely by women as men or the one that says it's commendable for women to stay at home and look after kids is propagated by women who're justifying a lifestyle they enjoy.

I keep saying the same thing but times are changing pretty quickly.
These days, for example, I'm over the fucking moon when a family still consists of 2 parents - one who goes out to work and one who brings up the kids - regardless of which is which.

Sorry for not replying sooner - had this bastard of a cold that I thought would fuck off after twenty-four hours. I get a little moody and irritable when I'm crook, so probably a little over-reactive. The only good thing about it is I've got a this croaky Bonnie Tyler voice. Unfortunately I'm still singing like a drowned cat in a room full of whinging hypochondriacs.

The trouble with 'feminism' is that it's a bit like 'Philosophy' (I think I may have said this before), or any other broad, ideological movement. It's so varied that pinning it down to one thing or the other makes it a little difficult. It's made even more difficult by the fact we've got things like Twitter and Tumblr that diminish important points into rage-filled 'sound bites' that provide little discussion, but plenty of outrage. I do consider myself a feminist, in the same way I'm a 'humanist' or 'Queerist' or whatever, I don't consider myself particularly radical, just a little impatience at times perhaps. But I can't say I can get particularly outraged when people are sceptical over feminism, because it doesn't handle PR particularly well (again, because it's so broad).

I imagine it's similar to how EU-sceptics feel, or conservatives. You know, they've got a perfectly reasonable ideological viewpoint - even if I don't agree with most of it (e.g. social conservatism), but then there's always one brass-necked cunt who opens their gob or does something ridiculously stupid and suddenly the baby's thrown away with the bathwater.

Attitudes NEED to be held by both 'men' and 'women', but I think there's also some issues that require a little gender-specific initiation with backing from all parties. I may have mentioned men's mental health in the DS post - this REALLY requires men to get involved and start paving the way in this to open discussion - but of course, it really requires women to be supportive of this. Another issue I think that's become 'hidden' or at least 'translucent' - male victims of violence, for example, regardless of the gender of the perpetrator (and I feel this especially when it comes to domestic violence - far too many men remain silent about such things), and this isn't helped when an attitudes of 'boys will be boys', 'manning up', etc, are harboured by society as a whole - men, women and perhaps other.

You're absolutely right about men raising children. This whole idea of it having to be women who raise the children is so antiquated (in my view) that it's just absurd to think that anybody - male or female - who think that men have to be the one out working is ludicrous. Surely, it's whoever can provide the most benefit in whatever role they decide to take after a good discussion between the people involved. I know some wonderful stay-at-home Dads, and some fucking brilliant single-fathers. I think their role is far too overlooked - whereas, quite rightly, we place commendation on single, working and stay-at-home Mums.

But it all comes from the same place - what men (should) do, what women (should) do. Now we're in a stage of 'modern thinking influx', and some people are swept out into a sea of confusion - well, what does that mean for me as a man, woman, etc. What am I expected to do? And that's rather shameful, because the whole point is that the expectation is only that you try and be the most successful in whatever it is you do try and do. I've heard it from traditionalists from time-to-time - 'well, I'm a woman, why am I expected to work instead of raising kids?' - and this is a result of a miscommunication of kinds - no-one's expecting you to give up child-rearing for full time work, but rather, that if you wanted to, no one would expect you NOT to.

It's the same bullshit we got (and still get) in same-sex marriage legalisation - suddenly, everyone's going to be forced to marry a bloke/lass, and all kids will be gay. When the actual truth is, if you want to marry someone of the same sex, you can, and if you have a gay kid, they'll be able to marry. And that's basically it. Same with cannabis legalisation - doesn't mean we're going to be sticking scoobies into the mouth of every infant, or that dear Edna the War Widow two-doors down will be forced to chuff on a bit of Mary Jane.

With all these gender issues, I do think it's a case of 'what's good for the goose, is good for the gander'. If it means women can lead successful lives independently of whether or not there's a man in their life, and vice versa for males (because of course, there's still an expectation there), or that men and women can choose what role they play in the formative years of child rearing, that can only be a good thing. If we can all access a decent education, job opportunities, and opportunities in life as a whole - that can only be a good thing. And I do think that's the part that gets missed here - particularly when it comes to the modern 'instant information' age - is that the benefits to everyone are lost. It's all well and good preaching to the converted, but it's really nothing more than a pointless exercise in 'sounding off', or a 'dress rehearsal' for the main event that never happens.

Sorry for the latest essay in the topic!

[Si_Crewe]

I imagine it's similar to how EU-sceptics feel, or conservatives. You know, they've got a perfectly reasonable ideological viewpoint - even if I don't agree with most of it (e.g. social conservatism), but then there's always one brass-necked cunt who opens their gob or does something ridiculously stupid and suddenly the baby's thrown away with the bathwater.

...

Sorry for the latest essay in the topic!

Again, just chopped out a bit I wanted to respond to. the rest was all equally understood though.

Just to look at your analogy a little more deeply, the issue is that the vast majority of people probably have some level of concern about the EU and/or immigration and, for the most part, they'll be perfectly reasonable concerns.
But then, on one extreme, you'll also have a small group of window-lickers who just flat-out don't like filthy paki's and "immigration" is a terrific way to obfuscate their bigotry by hiding it within justifiable concerns.
And then, on the other side, you'll also have a bunch of equally extremist nutters who attempt to dismiss any legitimate concerns by branding them as "racism" and anybody who voices their concerns as "bigots".
So, you get arseholes taking advantage of things to further their own extremist ideologies. Or just taking the opportunity to troll on the internet.

As I've probably said before, I consider myself a liberal (in the proper sense of the word) and that means everybody gets an equal chance but nobody gets favoritism. Equality is only equality when it's applied to everybody, without exception or caveats.

That being the case, when I read of people saying things like (as occurred in the previous chapter of the DS thread) "It would help achieve equality if women got given any jobs they applied for before any men get an opportunity", I feel like banging my head on my desk.
That's not "equality".
That's allowing women to cherry-pick any job they want, apparently without regard for which applicant is best qualified, in an attempt to achieve equal representation.
That's not "equality". That's bigotry, laziness and entitlement wrapped up in feminist ideology - possibly with a side-order of bitterness thrown in.

Clearly, there are legitimate aspects to feminism, just as there should be to "masculism as well, but when people are raising specific issues which ARE definitely nonsense or are, at best, unsubstantiated assertions then it's evasive to attempt to dismiss those things simply on the basis that "not all feminists think that".

As I've already said, I think it'd be useful if some reasonable, moderate figureheads appeared on both sides for people to get behind.
At the moment is seems like most people are either "not bovvered" or they're absolute nutcases about their cause.
I get the feeling that a lot of young women are going to read about things like rape, domestic violence, career choices and family roles and they're going to think to themselves "Shit! I really want to do my bit to change this stuff" and, before they know it, they end up as disciples to people like Anita Sarkeesian, Chanty Binx or Bahar Mustafa and they're in auditoriums shouting down anybody who expresses an opinion they don't agree with (while, simultaneously asserting that "free speech" gives them the right to do so - without any apparent trace of irony) and throwing bottles of piss at Richard Dawkins because he told a woman she was attractive or writing crazed letters to NASA demanding that one of their scientists is sacked because he wore a shirt they don't approve of.
None of which is actually doing anything for equality. It's just taking opportunities to shit on men.

So, erm, yeah. Endorse the reasonable but criticise the unreasonable as well.