What's bad about men's issues?

Post Reply New Topic

Isn't that always the case?

(rhetorical, know the answer is yes - the odd thing is that some can't see that this is the case)

1: When I last checked few years ago, women who ran for public office won at a slightly higher rate than men. You could try to dismiss that by assuming that they're running for easier seats, but I doubt the facts would back you up. A lot of the female candidates I can think of were running for very competitive seats like governorships and US senate seats, and quite a few now hold them as incumbents. How is it the fault of men if women don't run?

2: Since 1920, women in all US states have had an equal right to elect America's national security officials. In the following six decades, about 600,000 American men have been sent off to die for those officials' mistakes while not a single woman has been compelled to do so.

3: It's routine for US jurisdictions to enforce child support laws with a vengeance while ignoring child protection laws. So non-custodial fathers can be forced to pay for their kids' abuse.

Your first post in the thread got me thinking - both feminism and men's rights may have legitimate grievances with some of each other's ideas, some of each other's leadership, or some of each other's application of principles. It seems also like, in principle, few people really take issue with men's rights or women's rights as aspects of human rights but it's the ancillary items and power-grabs that get rolled in which tend to turn people off.

That makes me wonder if it might be possible for a discussion to happen that blasts the ancillary material of both sides (like separating the good points from rent-seeking in men's rights and doing the same for feminism). It also makes me wonder, if we have delicate topics that people really want to explore in depth and with pre-agreement of principle, if we might need some sort of semi-closed forum where only the people who agreed to participate do so (almost like the personal blog section but for narrow participation discussion and debate). Once too many people jump in it's anyone's guess where the conversation goes and typically it tends to flow in the direction of popular tropes and memes which is another way of saying the gutter.

1. In 2017/18, sure. It has gradually built up to this point in time.

2. It depends on the seats. As said name our equivalent to May/Merkel/Thatcher/etc.

3. You're naming one institutional issue whereas women are facing many more than men on an institutional rather than psychological level. So yeah, as a guy seeing guys who whine about women having it better is as ridiculous to me as straights complaining that the lgbtq community has it better. The word "snowflake" comes to mind.

Last edited by Spooky_Mulder on 23 Sep 2018, 7:19 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Male issues are Male issues. Stuff Like Getting Obese from the Days of Male Youth now, sadly
Spending 10K Hours on Average or So by Age 18 Playing Video Games Sitting Still with Additional
Potential Porn Addictions Without a Narrative Story of Romance to Reach a Woman's Heart Deeper
where Life is all about Instant Gratification in the 'Present of Hedonism'; Yes, Mostly Sitting Still Not Creating
Much of anything of Real Effect that actually adds to Society at Large. But True, it's really not the Males' Fault
that these are the Default's of Cultural Participation now Spoon-Fed From Childhood in what are increasingly
Single Parent Households as Humans are rather Weak in this Way and usually will Press the 'Lever for Sugar'
if it's Available instead of Hacking Sugar Cane with Blades; Yes, remote Control Life now is like this as who
walks up to the TV to Change the Channel even if Sitting Still is as Dangerous now to Health as Smoking
A Pack of Cigarettes a Day. Questions are, are individuals Smart enough to move out of the Ignorances
that Culture Presents, get in A 'Boot Camp' and Stay there and become the Captain of Your own
Ship as 'Real Men' Will Do And Be that Captain of the Ship that is also you as Navigator
and Maker of Boot-Camps of Continual Mind and Body Challenges in Life that make
a Person so much more Intelligent in the Kinds of Intelligences that are indispensable
to Survival in any Social Group; namely, the Emotional Regulation of Heart to Reach out and
touch other Folks to Lift Each other Up; and the Sensory Integration that makes a Person, Male or Female,
Comfortable Enough in their Skin and the Environment at Hand to be literally and metaphorically Fearless
when it comes to getting all the Jobs Done in life required to not stray away from the Demands of life that come.
It's Really Great Being a Man; It's Even Better Being a Strong Man with 100% Confidence in Fearless Will with a Foundation
of Loving Grace in Balance where 'James Bond' is no myth in 'Coolness' in Navigating all of the Environment, both Physical
and Emotional now. And it's True, Bond always gets the Women; and it's True, Bond never Blames the Women for that's not part
of Being
a 'Real Man' at all.
Being a Real Man is Figuring
Out what doesn't Work and Making
What Will Work Work; Avoiding Blaming
Anyone else for that doesn't change anything at all;
it's Just a Waste of Time Like a Video Game to nowhere.
The Real Question is what can and will you do to change your
Life; not what someone else will change for you for chances are they won't.
Anyway, it's no Secret that Women are moving Past Men now in just about all the ways
that comes over the Statistics provided in the Research Linked below; except for the Men
who have figured out how not to fall behind in a New Experiment of Culture that is rather 'insane' in many ways of Living.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sgAu1i6aChs

True. Those who hold the seats of power run the country. Most men don't hold the seats of power.

Don't think that the 0.00001% of men who do are looking out for the interests of all men. They're looking out for the interests of themselves and their billionaire friends.

So if we can only have a small number of people holding the seats of power, do you think it makes any difference if they're same sex as you? Can a man in power consider the needs of women? Can a woman in power consider the needs of men? If the answer to both of these questions is yes then it shouldn't matter if we have all men in power, all women in power or any combination thereof.

Anyway, which issues are men having nowadays?

I think I get the point you are trying to make. However, you might want to clarify upon this quoted part since it kinda says you're saying more women than men hold seats of power rather than (what I caught upon reading it again, and what I think you were trying to say) most men which would even include many of us on here.

I'll give a film example. Studies have shown that films about female protagonists have risen in accordance to the increase in the number of women who now hold positions of power within Hollywood. This is just one example, that I know of due to my profession - but there are, more than likely, others in various professions and fields from industry to the political sphere.



Thus far it's only been narrowed down to: women have more rights than men because they get to stay home as housewives.

I was I was kidding. I partly am, but weirdly partly not.

Are you arguing that it's fair for people who hold half of the democratic votes and a significant number of the congressional votes to bear no direct liability for the consequences of those votes?

(Edit: I'm not entirely sure whether you're responding respectively or just numbering your points for convenience; in the latter case, see below.)

In any case, there isn't an equivalent seat. The presidency is more military-centric than the prime ministerial positions in the UK or India. Why should a women who never registered for the draft be allowed to control the fates of the people who did? That sounds more like retaliatory discrimination than equality.


Want more?

Besides, having been one of the kids on the wrong end of that 'institutional issue' and having seen one of my childhood friends killed by it, I think I'm on pretty strong footing bringing it up.

1. "Why should a woman who never registered for the draft." So all you're saying is you'd like a woman president who was in the military. You are in 2018. Women serve in the military whereas Obama and Cadet Bone Spurs did not. Do you take issue with them or just with women with this? I'm just asking because considering the political climate it's very hypocritical.

2. I see, making it emotional and about you rather than quantifiable institutional slights (which are more against women). Nicely done and I'll leave it at that. Also, no, I don't care about your past - at all. Sorry to be harsh, I just don't. You mention horrible childhood, well there are young girls who are raped and battered by their fathers not to mention countless women being raped. But, okay, your "story" takes precedence over all others. You are more than welcome to share your childhood woes, maybe others are interested - I'm personally not.

3. Since you are taking this into emotional/attack all women territory (as can be seen by you taking this very personally and attributing your history onto all other women), I'm out. I do recommend sharing all of that with a psychologist rather than on here though, but up to you.

4. All that said, earnestly, have a good night.

Last edited by Spooky_Mulder on 23 Sep 2018, 8:47 pm, edited 2 times in total.

The thing that's really annoying with topics like these is that the jousting incentives are just really, really bad.

It makes me wonder if we should have a contentious/controversial topic zone where the circle of participation is preset, it would keep serious contestants from getting interrupted and would prohibit third parties coming into virtue signal or score cheap points - then if the parties who pre-agreed end up in a downward virtue signalling or cheap point scoring spiral everyone can agree it was their own fault. Not that no one would post threads like this in here anymore, there'd just be a potentially better alternative.

Less talk perhaps though, I'll put a bid in site discussion.

I'd say make it so only the people who post historical/statistical evidence to back up their claims rather than subjective opinion can participate - makes it fact rather than slight oriented. There's a whole lot of subjective from many, very few actually posting evidence to back that up with. I'm still in the fact world, not alternative facts meant to coddle.

Last edited by Spooky_Mulder on 23 Sep 2018, 8:56 pm, edited 2 times in total.

That would be the point of invites - call up someone you know would be good for it.

Yes. As you've guessed I meant most people in general don't hold the seats of power. That will always be the case unless we have some sort of Athenian democracy based on participation rather than voting.



Now that's an interesting one. Although some films don't have a clear protagonist. Who do you think is the protagonist of The African Queen? Katharine Hepburn's character or Humphrey Bogart's character? Do you think The African Queen was made to appeal to men or women or both? Do you think people can empathise with a protagonist whose sex differs from their own? What about a different ethnicity or other differences?

Personally I empathise more with movie characters of roughly the same social class. I can't relate to people who are too poor or too rich. After all, how poor or rich you are can have a huge impact on your quality of life. A greater impact perhaps, than even your race or sex. I think that in modern times the lower class is the oppressed group that is the most forgotten and least mentioned.




They must be mad if they want to be stay at home housewives. It sounds so boring! Are they upset that they must have to go out and work? One of the biggest issues I have with MRA is that after criticising femininists for playing the victim, they themselves play the victim. It amazes me that they can't see they hypocracy in this.

With film it basically comes down to:

“Write what you know.”

Most write and make what they know. As a guy, I personally would feel uncomfortable writing a film about a female protagonist because I wouldn’t even know where to start with understanding her character. That’s my take and I’m guessing many other men are the same. Women craft female stories better.

As to who can relate to which stories audience-wise. The impact differs depending on who one is. Wonder Woman impacts women more, Black Panther impacts blacks more, Love Simon impacts gays more. Some films are really niche and I think only certain demographics can get into them. Race, seems to be all mainstream just would impact others more. Women, well most guys stay away from Lifetime movies. Lgbtq, I don’t know many straight guys that’d be interested in indie lgbtq romantic films (as a bi dude I like them, but unsure if straights would). There’s both mainstream and niche. Economic standing, I think working and middle class is more mainstream whereas upper class is niche (ex: Wolf of Wallstreet).

Typically increased representation behind the screen leads to increased representation on the screen for this reason. It’s getting all around better in recent years for everyone.

To get back on topic, an interesting factoid - in 11 years of The X-Files they only had three female directors (with the third being from this recent season). I think it really puts into perspective how many women in Hollywood are given a chance to direct in comparison to men.

I'm fat and old and I have a very strange walk that's almost like a march. I couldn't keep up with the rest of the kids in my PE classes in high school. If that wasn't the case, I'd be fighting in the Middle East right now.