全 106 件のコメント

[–]Personage1 94ポイント95ポイント  (46子コメント)

I think it's important a distinction the article is making. The article is talking about men who think they face sexism but not women. We know men face discrimination and sexism, we just are informed enough to know it's not some feminist conspiracy for women to take over the world.

Interestingly though, I do think it's obvious that Feminism is the leading cause of this, just not in the way these people think. For starters, the saying "when you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression." If feminism hadn't been fighting for equality for women for the last century or two this wouldn't be a "problem."

I also think feminism is to "blame" for the issues of male gender roles. Issues surrounding male suicide, unfair expectations with dating, and male rape wouldn't be discussed without feminism. However the reason for this is because feminism challenged the idea that being stereotypically masculine is automatically the best. Without feminism, the concern for these gendered issues would be pushed aside, and men who couldn't conform to masculine gender roles would just be left behind and forgotten.

But instead of taking cues from feminism and focusing on the gender roles and restrictions that are the real underlying cause of gendered problems, mras and such buy into a fantasy where it's feminism that caused the injustice. Or when you call them out on that, it's feminism's fault for not adressing men's issues itself, despite feminism historically and today being primarily women and so in some ways not even being the right people to focus on men's issues. Oh and then you also realize it often is feminists who first try to help men.

I think that people from the first group who are just upset that they no longer are as privileged as they were historically sell easy explanations to people in the second group. "Men are disposable." Except when you actually look at history. "Men lose the overwhelming majority of custody cases." Except they don't (it's roughly equal), men give up custody (which is still a problem, but one much harder to address than the courts....huh). I recently had a discussion with someone on male suicide, where they think we shouldn't say "toxic masculinity" because the cause for greater number of male suicide is entirely external.

But the real solutions aren't easy, and that's terrifying. Introspection isn't easy if you aren't used to having to do it, and even if you are it can be a punch in the gut. Accepting that what's masculine isn't automatically good flies in the face of what the media tells us.

And to repeat what I've said before, feminism could absolutely be doing more, but don't you think it should be primarily men leading the charge, looking to the women who came before for inspiration and guidance on strategy rather than expecting their leadership?

[–]ThomashetTreintje 27ポイント28ポイント  (2子コメント)

I think one of the causes of the crisis of masculinity, in where some young men are really angry at feminism, is that for men a lot of the time adjusting to a feminist worldview is only benificial for them if the people they know already have a feminist worldview.

I see feminism as the superior way for a society to be, over traditional gender roles, but a lot of males have quite a bit to lose if they don't conform to traditional gender roles. In dating, a girl who is assertive tends to have overall a higher chance of getting someone who fits with her except in very conservative areas wherre she'll be considered a slut, whereas a boy who is not assertive loses out on a lot of chances and is way more likely to be alone, unless he is in a really progressive environment.

Same goes for jobs. If a woman does not conform to traditional gender roles, her chances of a promotion increase, because they first were almost non-existent (they can naturally still be smaller than a mans chance). However, a man who does not conform to traditional gender stereotypes is less likely to get a job, since he doesn't stand out over other similar males.

I don't think traditional feminism blaming men is the only cause for such a large group of radical young men, neither do I think feminism "not caring for their issues" is the big problem. I believe that for a big group of young males who are not already in a progressive / feminist environment, not being traditionally masculine is bad for their lives in some ways, and you have to have a very strong will still to be feminist if it makes your own life harder by living that way.

[–]11s_eggos 13ポイント14ポイント  (1子コメント)

Interesting points. I will say that as a woman who acts a bit more "male" (I'm direct, don't BS, say what I mean, and am not afraid to speak up or take charge if the situation warrants), it harms me. It has been the cause of consternation for a lot of people. I'm not an asshole—people consider me very likable (I'm often surprised at how many do, in fact)—but I think I'm just not confirming to my gender role behavior-wise (physically, I do).

[–]ThomashetTreintje [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Yeah, it's quite possible that I underestimated how difficult it is for women not to conform to gender stereotypes, but I think the point still stands that being a feminist is really hard for a lot of young guys and that people who say that everyone should be a feminist and anyone who isn't is a horrible person underestimate those struggles and only further widen the gap between themselves and people who are inclined to become feminists, but for whom its very hard because of their social environmnent.

[–]eaton [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I think it's important a distinction the article is making. The article is talking about men who think they face sexism but not women. We know men face discrimination and sexism, we just are informed enough to know it's not some feminist conspiracy for women to take over the world.

This a billion times. One of the reasons that things really, really "clicked" for me when I started reading and learning about intersectional feminist thought was that it actively and consciously engaged with the multitude of ways that people can be hurt by AND benefit from oppressive systems and structures.

Acknowledging and confronting one axis doesn't mean that another does not exist. Being harmed by one axis does not mean that I am not the beneficiary of another (or even the same one, in different ways).

One of the most frustrating things for me is hearing guys who (much like me) grew up as "nerds" talk about how they can't be abusive, because they were abused. Or, they can't be sexist and rapey, because that's what the jocks were like in high school, and the jocks hated them. It feels like they're teetering inches away from the intersectional 'Aha!' moment, but it rarely happens.

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK 23ポイント24ポイント  (18子コメント)

Hold on, hold on.

"Men lose the overwhelming majority of custody cases." Except they don't (it's roughly equal), men give up custody (which is still a problem, but one much harder to address than the courts....huh).

The problem is more deeply rooted than this allows for. Go talk to a family lawyer; they'll tell you that judges much more often side with mothers during the rare case that lands on their desk.

That means, as a lawyer, your job is to tell your client, "yes, there is a bias there, and you're wasting your money if you try to overcome it." So the man doesn't, skewing those outcomes.

[–]Personage1 15ポイント16ポイント  (16子コメント)

Ok....so you mean to tell me that the problem isn't simple?

Or are you trying to suggest that because I didn't cover every last nuance of a topic that I myself say is complicated in a reply that was already starting to become a wall, the only conclusion is that I think exactly what I said and nothing more? Because I think you are being a bit silly if that is the case.

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK 22ポイント23ポイント  (1子コメント)

I'm saying the problem isn't simple. I find it frustrating when the axes on which men truly, really, honestly get the short end of the stick are minimized. I think it's unfair.

[–]Personage1 11ポイント12ポイント  (0子コメント)

Ok cool, so you are agreeing with me. It just seemed like your first reply to me was arguing something.

[–]Semaug 3ポイント4ポイント  (8子コメント)

You're simplifying things too much. Women are favored too much in child custody. "toxic masculinity" - makes people feel bad about themselves. Where's the people talking about toxic femininity. Gender roles are neither good nor bad, but what is bad is people being forced to abide by them. Feminism is about women and tends to sometimes even maintain some gender roles(though very subtle) MRAs are sexists and anti feminists. That doesn't mean feminism has helped men as much as you say. Feminism is about women. And that's fine. Gender issues though are complicated. And they're not wrong about men being disposable in wars. These are all things to consider.

[–]Personage1 24ポイント25ポイント  (4子コメント)

are you trying to suggest that because I didn't cover every last nuance of a topic that I myself say is complicated in a reply that was already starting to become a wall, the only conclusion is that I think exactly what I said and nothing more? Because I think you are being a bit silly if that is the case.

Also, a quick note on

Where's the people talking about toxic femininity.

See I struggle so much to take people who make this complaint seriously, because if you actually went and paid attention to feminist writings and frankly plenty of feminist discussion (in situations where feminists aren't having to deal with people derailing their conversations), you would see that feminism criticizes femininity constantly.

The difference is that no one ever needed to be convinced that femininity wasn't always the best thing to strive for, and so it never needed to be pointed out by adding any qualifiers.

[–]Semaug [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

I dislike the talk over toxic masculinity because there's almost an implication femininity is preferred. I don't like labeling femininity or masculinity as toxic.

I think feminism, mostly because of its own nature. Tends to still bias femininity over masculinity. Which is more reflective of how deeply ingrained social roles are. I don't like the idea of toxic masculinity or femininity, I think they are just social roles that are neither good nor bad. What isn't ok is when people are forced into them or are forced into lower economic positions because of them.

[–]Applesaucery [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

"Toxic masculinity" isn't "masculinity = toxic," it's "the kind of masculinity that is toxic." It's indicating a particular kind of masculinity, not qualifying all masculinity as toxic.

I completely disagree about feminism--it has historically and still often does skew against traditional femininity, tending to treat as inferior choices (and women) that align with stereotypical femininity. I think that's starting to improve with third-wave intersectional feminism. Or more people are starting to realize that if you fight for having options, you can't then turn around and condemn someone else's choice because it's not what you would choose. Or maybe it's just that the people I spend time with aren't the kind of people who would consider me inferior because I keep my nails long and polished.

[–]androidTechMom [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I always interpreted "toxic masculinity" to mean the subset of masculinity that is toxic. Not as implying that all masculinity is toxic.

[–]HeatDeathIsCool [スコア非表示]  (2子コメント)

Where's the people talking about toxic femininity.

It's called internalized misogyny, and it gets talked about pretty frequently.

I think the thing that doesn't get talked about enough in feminist circles is the degree to which women promote toxic masculinity. But that's aside the point.

[–]Kingreaper [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

It's called internalized misogyny, and it gets talked about pretty frequently.

And that distinct bias in the terminology is something that should be called out again and again, because in both cases the blame (and agency) is being put on men (women can't have their own bad position, they've just internalised it from outside sources - men have their own toxicity to blame)

[–]HeatDeathIsCool [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

(women can't have their own bad position, they've just internalised it from outside sources

That source is a society made up of men and women.

men have their own toxicity to blame)

Who is to say that the toxicity comes from within themselves?

You're adding all these meanings to these terms that are not present in the terminology as they exist.

[–]StabbyPants 1ポイント2ポイント  (4子コメント)

I didn't cover every last nuance of a topic

you didn't do any - you just said that it's even, ignoring that people aren't blind and won't bring action that's an automatic loser.

[–]Personage1 6ポイント7ポイント  (3子コメント)

I wrote a huge wall and, in a section where I was talking about how things are more difficult than mras make them out to be, mentioned that child custody goes in that category. I think you are being purposely obtuse to interpret that as me saying "the full and total explanation for this situation that I already claimed is complicated is only that men give up custody."

Oh, I suppose I could have said "than just the courts," but you still have to be rather uncharitable to assume (not even ask for clarification) that I don't think there is a single problem with the courts.

[–]StabbyPants -1ポイント0ポイント  (2子コメント)

you're trying to claim that this isn't a problem with the courts, but defining things far too narrowly. regardless, if the mras want to take feminism to task for their part in custody disputes, they've got a valid gripe.

[–]Personage1 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

but you still have to be rather uncharitable to assume (not even ask for clarification) that I don't think there is a single problem with the courts.

[–]Hammer_of_truthiness 11ポイント12ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'll admit I wasn't crazy about the post above. I feel like it encapsulated a lot of problems feminists have when discussing male issues, namely a kneejerk reaction to deflect and diminish. What got me was the suicide thing though... the massively higher male suicide rate is something that is screaming for analysis along the axis of gender and I can't really see how it would come to loggerheads with women's issues.

[–]way2lazy2care 7ポイント8ポイント  (8子コメント)

Interestingly though, I do think it's obvious that Feminism is the leading cause of this, just not in the way these people think. For starters, the saying "when you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression." If feminism hadn't been fighting for equality for women for the last century or two this wouldn't be a "problem."

I dunno that it's that reductive. If you look at a lot of the verbiage that comes out of the kinds of feminists you hear about rather than your average feminist ("mmm white male tears", "Humongous what?", etc), it's easy to see how someone could come to the conclusion that they're discriminated against the same way somebody in a different mold who listens to only Rush Limbaugh might feel like conservatives en masse discriminate against them.

[–]Personage1 8ポイント9ポイント  (1子コメント)

and how do you hear about them? What is the context in which they are saying things?

Rush Limbaugh is far more listened to than feminist bloggers. Further, Fox News, supposedly a fair and balanced news source, reinforces the kind of bigotry that people see from the right.

[–]way2lazy2care [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

You're kind of missing my point. I'm talking about the perception you'd have from only ever seeing the extremists that disagree with you. I'm not making a partisan argument. I'm just saying I could see how you could get the impression that the pendulum is swinging to far the other way if you never have any exposure to moderates.

[–]TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK 14ポイント15ポイント  (2子コメント)

"The kinds of feminists you hear about" are, naturally, the ones who make noise. Clinic escorts are usually too busy helping people to post to tumblr. It's easy to cherrypick them and draw lazy conclusions, but that's not reality.

[–]way2lazy2care [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

I know. That's why I specifically separated them from the average feminist.

[–]StabbyPants 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

oh man, the hugh mungus chick lives in my city - is she taken seriously by anyone?

[–]unclefisty 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

I'm sure she takes herself SUPER CEREAL.

[–]StabbyPants 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

well sure, but my main exposure is seeing people mock her for being a lunatic; i'm not aware of anyone on any side of this debate claiming that she's somehow reasonable. she's a more articulate trigglypuff.

[–]lurker093287h[S] 26ポイント27ポイント  (10子コメント)

I thought this was the most interesting bit

researchers have found that men are prone to seeing discrimination as a zero-sum game. That is, they believe that discrimination against one group necessarily benefits another group and vice versa, so any policy that benefits African-Americans, for instance, harms whites, and any policy that benefits women amounts to discrimination against men. Fifteen years ago, younger men — and women of all ages — overwhelmingly rejected this view, but recent data shows that younger white men are now about as likely as older men to see discrimination as zero-sum...

What's changed. In other bits I've seen from this guy he's interpreting the change in perception about other things as motivated by economic concerns, but is that the only reason? There is some decent evidence of what would be considered discrimination against men in some places in US society; Schools (by female teachers and by the changes in the broader educational system maybe), prison sentencing, maybe some other things like divorce and child custody that seem to affect men more often? colleges maybe? But, do men (or republican men particularly) know about that to the extent that it's showing up in the polls, are they getting that from direct experience or are they seeing various programs etc for women and wondering why they aren't getting help. Do they just get it from disgruntlement at their situation and the right wing media blaming x, y and z group. Has the ubiquity of feminist media had some kind of effect?

It would be good to see in what way they think they are being discriminated against. I wonder what the data would be for parts of Europe where male 'breadwinner' wages haven't been stagnant for so long for so much of the population also.

In the ANES data, men who perceive discrimination against men are more likely to oppose mandatory employer coverage of contraception and parental leave laws, for instance. Even if there’s no evidence that such policies would hurt men (heterosexual men clearly also benefit from contraception), the logic of the zero-sum approach is unforgiving: Anything that helps women must also be hurting men...

Even if men are actually privileged in society, the belief that they aren’t is enough to push them to respond to perceived discrimination in the same way that actually disadvantaged members of society do. They increase their gender group identification, experience lower self-esteem, get angry, and even lash out at the group they see as doing the oppressing.

This fits well into the reverse identity politics idea it seems, I remember a quote from one of the people who wrote books about the emergence of rural identity said something like Scott Walker had managed to convince rural voters to cut public services because they had it in their heads that x public program 'wasn't going to help people like them'. This seems like a serious problem for social democrats.

[–]decidedlyindecisive 16ポイント17ポイント  (0子コメント)

Personally I suspect that the media has become more pervasive as we become more connected to it. The past 15 years has seen a shift to the political right wing by most media (in the UK, in my totally unqualified opinion) but I suspect that the biggest impact is due to how often we are consuming it. My Dad used to just read the paper on the train and watch the news in the evening, now we're checking our phones every few seconds, we're reading content almost constantly.

Whereas before you'd read something and digest it in reality, now we plummet down a rabbit hole and don't need to come out until we want to. If you combine that with the fact that the news sources are sometimes fake or take place in echo chambers, I think it means that we are becoming more polarised. The more polarised we become, the easier it is to "other" people and therefore estrange yourself from them.

[–]Not_An_Ambulance -13ポイント-12ポイント  (8子コメント)

Rights are a zero sum game. Every right one person (in the legal sense) has is a right another person does not.

So, a right to not be discriminated against comes from others. It might be a right to select whomever you want to work for you. A right to use whatever method one wants to select who to teach. A right to rent to the person you want to.

Now, this is not to say that it's bad to give/restore rights to those who need them... but, it is a zero sum game.

Edit: Rather than downvotes... how about an attempt to be open minded and ask the question you have about this? I mean, I'm an attorney and the interaction of legal rights is something I actually experience in a real way...

[–]KaonPlus 14ポイント15ポイント  (6子コメント)

You're applying a rigid structure of rights to a set of phenomena that're far too nuanced to make the comparison worth anything.

The point that the article makes about rights not being zero-sum is in reference to the idea that somebody can be discriminated against by a particular issue, and a person on the opposite end of the scale can also be discriminated against by that issue - just in different ways. It's not about rights in the theoretical sense, as you suggest.

[–]Not_An_Ambulance -1ポイント0ポイント  (5子コメント)

I don't mean in a theoretical sense at all. In a very real sense even minor rights can come into play to determine liability in a court case.

Sure, the right can be something that one person cares very little about and another cares a great deal about.

[–]KaonPlus 6ポイント7ポイント  (4子コメント)

I'm aware of rights as a legal concept - i'm in the last year of my own law degree so i'm not unfamiliar with them.

My point is that they're irrelevant. The question is whether discrimination is zero-sum - in that sense it's missing the point. Of course everybody has the right not to be discriminated against, but that's just flowery words when it comes to the way people actually interact with each other.

[–][削除されました]  (3子コメント)

[removed]

    [–]KaonPlus[M] 4ポイント5ポイント  (2子コメント)

    Yeah, fine. Regardless, you can't talk like that in this community. Either leave it at the door or go somewhere else; if it happens again you'll be banned.

    [–][削除されました]  (1子コメント)

    [removed]

      [–]Personage1 18ポイント19ポイント  (0子コメント)

      I suspect the reason for any downvotes is that this response seems to be trying to misunderstand the issue.

      For starters, trying to argue that the right to not be discriminated against infringes on someone else's right to discriminate is really only useful if you want to be technically correct, but has no real life usefullness. It's interesting as an intellectual exercise, but nothing more.

      [–]piar 66ポイント67ポイント  (7子コメント)

      Those who frequent /r/MensLib know that men's issues and discrimination goes much further than being expected to pay on dates like the article claims. By ignoring the real problems and real discrimination men face, this article fuels the divide between protected groups and the only unprotected group.

      Edit: The article also ignores the possibility that discrimination has increased against republican men, which seems like a potential cause as other groups strengthen their voices.

      [–]KaonPlus 64ポイント65ポイント  (4子コメント)

      It's worth noting that those are the examples of discrimination offered by the men themselves, not the author. Whether or not men as a whole have issues is definitely not the same thing as men actually being aware of those issues - hell, bringing up my involvement with this community with my male family and friends usually results in "but men don't have any gender issues".

      [–]Hammer_of_truthiness 52ポイント53ポイント  (0子コメント)

      Whether or not men as a whole have issues is definitely not the same thing as men actually being aware of those issues

      I think this hits the nail on the head. Overlooking the possibility of cherry picked quotes, a lot of guys have very little awareness of male issues on a conscious level. Bias in education is a great example, where male students appear to be aware of bias on some unconscious level (as reflected by less effort for assignments by female teachers) but either haven't consciously recognized it or have not put their experiences in the larger context.

      Part of the problem with the way popular and even academic discussions of male privilege are conducted is that they reinforce this unwillingness by men and women to examine how societal biases and harmful gender norms negatively impact men. I think a lot of people, myself included, have trouble internalizing the idea of intersectionality that privilege can flip and flop depending on the situation, that the privileged/unprivileged roles are fluid, not set in stone. For some people I think this leads to rejecting male disadvantages out of hand, while others reject (often angrily) female disadvantages.

      [–]SamBeastie 6ポイント7ポイント  (2子コメント)

      The author had control over which quotes were included in the article. We don't know if "we have to pay on dates" was the most common/first example anyone gave -- only that the author chose to highlight these.

      [–]KaonPlus 22ポイント23ポイント  (1子コメント)

      Per the cited study:

      Empirical research (Branscombe, 1998; Kappen, Branscombe, Kobrynowicz, & Schmitt, 2000; Swim, Cohen, & Hyers, 1998) has demonstrated that the kinds of events women label as discriminatory (e.g. unequal pay, fear of sexual assault) are more severe than the kinds of events men label as discriminatory (e.g. having to pay when on dates, being more likely to get a speeding ticket).

      And further down:

      Disadvantaged groups report encountering prejudice and discrimination across a wider variety of life contexts than do members of privileged groups, who report discrimination experiences that are relatively circumscribed (Branscombe, 1998). These studies suggest that for the disadvantaged, discrimination experiences are likely to be seen as relatively severe and stable occurrences rather than isolated or unusual events.

      [–]lurker093287h[S] 10ポイント11ポイント  (0子コメント)

      We should say that those are, by his own data, from well before there was a turn in male (esp republican) opinion about this, and especially before younger men turned to seeing things in a zero sum way which he says is at the turn of the century. From the op

      Fifteen years ago, younger men — and women of all ages — overwhelmingly rejected this view, but recent data shows that younger white men are now about as likely as older men to see discrimination as zero-sum

      What I would like to know is, is this driven by anything, is it just a random cultural turn fuelled by right wing media, is it motivated by economic concerns and the 'mancession' and poor recovery for 'breadwinner' jobs in sectors of the population, is it that they are noticing that they are discriminated against, or is it some combination of these and other stuff.

      [–]therapy [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

      The article also ignores the possibility that discrimination has increased against republican men

      That's a very good point. I think it makes sense: Republican men definitely have a different experience living in the US than me and likely everyone else on this sub.

      As one example I just realized, more and more of our lives are now controlled by the corporations that control our digital lives: Facebook, Twitter, Google, etc. That industry is undeniably very progressive and liberal. Which is fine, but it does have downsides for men on the right. For example, just today Twitter banned a bunch of right-wing accounts for unclear reasons. That's a worry people on the left don't have.

      [–]Kareem_Jordan 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

      Pretty much the problem I had with the article. It pretty much answers it's own question. I think most people don't deny that men face certain discrimination any more than they deny that women have been historically oppress and still face lingering discrimination.

      Sadly, it's the advocates on both sides forcing people to choose with the conservatives seemingly less likely to say, "this is getting stupid, I don't care anymore."

      [–]SmileAndNod64 29ポイント30ポイント  (11子コメント)

      To me, the main discrimination I feel is through the, "straight white men are the great evil in the world" mindset. History classes seem to be so heavily focused on how white males screwed everyone. I mean history of the US could go from a slavery chapter to the gold rush period (focusing heavily on the treatment of asian americans) to Women's Suffrage, a brief interlude in ww1, to ww2 with a specific focus on japanese internment, to the civil rights movement. I don't know if there's any solution to that (it's not like any of these topics should be ignored or even glossed over, they're all so incredibly important), but it's understandable why young white males can fee like they're unfairly aquiring blame for everything.

      I aboslutely love poetry and love going to poetry slams, but I feel like shit every time I leave. They mostly feel like a night of being told I'm everything that's wrong with the world.

      [–]11s_eggos 33ポイント34ポイント  (2子コメント)

      I've heard this before, but since it was usually from guys shouting at me about how men are more likely to be attacked than I (a woman) am on the street, I've not been able to really hear it. However, since this POV is in this sub, it gave me pause. I know those of us on the moderate side of liberal (I used to think I was super left until I moved to a super blue city and state) don't demonize white men, so it always seemed like bellyaching to me.

      But I hear what you're saying, and I am contemplating it. For what it's worth, I read an article the other day that resonated with me, and I thought you might like to read it as well: http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-helpful-answers-to-societys-most-uncomfortable-questions/

      And thank you for sharing your perspective.

      [–]wooq 10ポイント11ポイント  (1子コメント)

      I hear what you're saying, and I am contemplating it. And thank you for sharing your perspective.

      Why can't more people interact like this? Seriously. All the problems we have would be solved so much quicker, all the discussions would be so much more productive, if people simply said "I hear you, I'll think about what you've said." Thank you for that, it made my day.

      [–]Gyrant [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

      Literally if everyone did this instead of jumping straight to calling each other names as soon as they disagree, Trump wouldn't have been elected.

      [–]DblackRabbit 14ポイント15ポイント  (0子コメント)

      I aboslutely love poetry and love going to poetry slams, but I feel like shit every time I leave. They mostly feel like a night of being told I'm everything that's wrong with the world.

      I'm trying to find the clearest way of saying this, but it like a disparity in the conversation timeline. You're coming into some of the intersectional conversations in the middle, and weren't there for the beginning where all the terms were more or less set up a long time ago and you're working from a different book. It not that straight white men are the great evil of the world, its that this mess exists and most people are talking past the fault finding part and onto why its happening and that is needs to be fixed.

      [–]Manception 20ポイント21ポイント  (3子コメント)

      Almost all of those examples talk about race and gender identity (and probably class identity too), and usually not every individual white man.

      Maybe this point isn't communicated well, or maybe it's not understood well by some white men, willfully or not.

      I was challenged by similar messages at first too, but I quickly learned that it wasn't an attack on me personally, but my privileges. It's when you deny or use those privileges that you get swept up in the fight. Recognize that being a white man is better than belonging to the alternative groups isn't that hard and helps a lot.

      [–]blarg212 10ポイント11ポイント  (2子コメント)

      Does this mean when peaceful Muslims gets treated poorly be people lumping them in with terrorists that they should not complain?

      No, they should. The problem is identity politics demonize groups which is poor for empathy and discussion. We need nuance, not generalizations and stereotypes.

      Right there on the right side of this sub, this sub is supposed to help build a healthier, kinder and more inclusive masculinity. How is making white males out to be the greatest evil foster that?

      [–]Personage1 9ポイント10ポイント  (0子コメント)

      Does this mean when peaceful Muslims gets treated poorly be people lumping them in with terrorists that they should not complain?

      Well, what exactly are the complaints? In US history, we make it a huge point to give nuanced views to white men, to talk about the bad certainly, but also to discuss the good. Further, US history is written by overwhelmingly white men, who grew up in the US, and have a personal understanding of where US culture has led to.

      On the other hand when people in the west condemn Muslims, what are we basing that off of? Generally, the answer is white western media. I know that Islam has many problems that should be addressed just on principle, but I don't think most of the people in America have a good enough understanding of Islam to have a valid opinion of anything beyond very surface aspects, much less have valid complaints of all Muslims.

      [–]Manception 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

      No, it means that every Muslim should likewise not take it as a personal attack when someone criticizes aspects of Islam.

      If we're talking about Muslim immigrants we're also comparing a minority to a majority group. There's really little comparison here.

      [–]11s_eggos 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

      Also, FWIW, as a Caucasian (I'm Native American but didn't know until well into adulthood, and I'm pretty damned pale), I also feel guilty when I read about slavery and lynching and Japanese internment. No one asked me to feel that way. I just knew what my ancestors had done and was like, "Damn, yo. That shit was bad."

      Just so you know it's not only the white men who feel guilty sometimes. We women do as well.

      [–]BlueFireAt [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

      And then you remember literally almost every group of any kind with power ever did terrible things, and it makes you feel not as bad.

      [–]rootyb 30ポイント31ポイント  (27子コメント)

      [–]lurker093287h[S] 11ポイント12ポイント  (8子コメント)

      Interesting, but why would this have changed in the last 15 years, and why for republican men while Democrat men are remaining stable. Also why have young men started seeing discrimination as a zero sum thing.

      There doesn't seem to be all that much different in the political and social landscape between now and the turn of the century.

      [–]0vinq0 21ポイント22ポイント  (7子コメント)

      So I don't want to defend that guess as a simple answer. It wouldn't account for all of this. But I do think there's truth to it. I think one of the biggest recent changes in the political/social landscape is the increased voice of minorities. Now more than ever, marginalized populations are fighting for their rights. One good example of this is the Black Lives Matter movement (formed in 2013, between the years where the percentage of Republican men who felt discriminated against doubled). White America was "othered" by this movement, which is not an experience we were familiar with.

      Now, depending on people's perspectives, the natural reactions to this could be acknowledgement of issues faced by racial minorities (common Democratic reaction because Democrats are more likely to be racial minorities) or a feeling that this minimizes the issues faced by white people (common Republican reaction because Republicans are more likely to be white).

      On a similar note, but not backed by any data, just a hypothesis, that media coverage may make social issues feel like a zero sum game. We may tend to think that media coverage of an issue correlates with general effort fixing that issue. If the media is currently focusing on a particular issue, they naturally put others to the wayside. It's easy for this to make us feel like the world is putting our issues to the wayside. Hence it seems like zero sum.

      Edit: I just reread my comment, and I should not have said "now more than ever, marginalized populations are fighting for their rights." That'd be pretty ignorant to say, given history. I just meant to highlight it as a current phenomenon which occupies the limelight.

      [–]lurker093287h[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (6子コメント)

      I think you're onto something, especially about the blacklivesmatter correlation and 'othering' it seems to match up (but who knows I guess), the demographic bit might add to it with their being a narrative that white people would soon not be a majority of the population. But I wonder how that relates to gender here.

      I'm not 100% sure but I think there were somewhat similar levels of activism at and before the turn of the century, the 90s seem to be a big time of feminist and black social organising, the million man march etc, there was Lilith fair and all sorts of other stuff. Maybe it was Obama but that doesn't fit at all and large parts of the rural industrial mid west voted for Obama in his first and second terms. Still fuzzy.

      I read an article that basically blamed 'privilege theory' (and tacitly clickbait and/or outragebait journalism) for this othering effect.

      But from what I've been able to understand about the 90s and early 00s social activism It doesn't seem really all that different (NOI inspired 90s hiphop was quite a bit more openly racially inflamatory than nowadays for example). On the other side also there were right wing shock jocks race-baiting and breaking 'political correctness' also. There were different characteristics and it probably was out of the mainstream more I guess. Odd.

      [–]0vinq0 12ポイント13ポイント  (1子コメント)

      I probably shouldn't be talking out my ass without being more knowledgable, but I'm going to do it anyway. lol I'd love to hear more educated responses, too.

      It could be compounded by the recession and related factors. So we had the largest recession since the 30s. 8.8 million jobs were lost. And a large number of those were white men. Even though black men were hit harder, focus on black men only would naturally make the white men feel even worse. Like, "Hey, I'm suffering just as bad as that guy is, but because I belong to the overall less suffering group, I get ignored?" Basically, they'd feel angrier during this time that minority problems were highlighted, because they were currently suffering.

      Personally, I understand that the "privilege" concept did make people feel alienated and demonized, and we should recognize that that happened. However, I think the blame on that concept and "smug liberals" is misplaced. People have fallen victim to the same mental traps we've fallen into for centuries. Rather than point fingers at the people who caused the problems, we point fingers at each other, because now we're (at least perceived to be) competing for the resources they left for us.

      [–]lurker093287h[S] 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

      I think this is definitely a factor. The author of the article has actually said something extremely similar to this from his own surveys (quote from the radio)

      in the 2008 and 20012 data we have, you didn't see much of a unification of people with racial resentment, economic resentment and gender based resentment and by 2016 we're seeing all of those seem to be forming one dimension. That is, people who in the past were against gay rights weren't necessarily showing levels of racial resentment, by 2016 we're seeing those attitudes are starting to merge and we're getting one coherent political dimension that looks like the alt right.

      in 2012 we asked in the american national election survey whether men were being discriminated against (which seems like an odd thing to ask in America that's why we didn't ask it before) [posters note; I don't agree with this and it seems like 'received wisdom'], and we found that somewhere around 20% of republicans said that men were being discriminated against in America. In 2016 that number more than doubled, we're up to about 45% of republican men say that men are facing discrimination in America. The idea is that white men, driven largely by economic resentment are being driven to accepting all of these views that were previously very very fringe views held mostly by white nationalists. The idea that jews and women and homosexuals are corrupting the political system and getting all of these extra benefits from it, that was not something we were seeing in mainstream ideology before.

      But what's happened is that we have enormous levels of economic resentment, the way we haven't seen previously since we've been doing these studies since the 1960s, by economic resentment I mean people saying that the economic system is rigged against them, people like them cannot find a job, and that level of economic resentment that we saw coming out of the 2008 recession (remember that early on sociologists called it a 'mansession' and it was disproportionately white men loosing their jobs, that has lead to this racial gender and other resentments coming forward.

      So people have been trying to sell this alt right ideology for 20, 30 or more years, pat Buchanan has been trying to sell it personally for 20 years and it never got any traction until very recently, and it turns out what was missing was that economic resentment where white blue collar men no longer feel like they can get ahead in society, increasingly they are blaming what they feel are special interest groups...[and that ties into all these other groups, we're seeing...] higher levels for instance of anti Semitism which is something we actually took off most of these surveys because no one was admitting to anti-Semitic attitudes any more, and we're now seeing people on surveys saying that 'jews tend to stick together', that 'jews are greedy'. People are willing to say things to an interviewer that simply weren't socially acceptable before.

      [–]DblackRabbit 6ポイント7ポイント  (3子コメント)

      There's the other explanation, which is that the divide hasn't grown, its just getting filmed and the platforms for protesting have grown to force a larger audience to listen. The ability to express grievances louder meant others could hear it and also voice that same grievances.

      [–]lurker093287h[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

      I guess so, and they have internet communities where they get amplified by the exposed to only views they have in common and that gets amplified by 'the law of group polarisation'. But wasn't that basically talk radio for a period in the 90s, people had the same views and the host sometimes had extreme versions of them, people could call in etc. I seriously have no idea.

      [–]DblackRabbit 5ポイント6ポイント  (1子コメント)

      That isn't really what I meant. To use an example to make it clearer, #BlackLiveMatter, is a name for a super old conversation and grievance way older then Trayvon, Twitter or even Rodney King in the 90's. Rodney King's beating was recorded, so it could be broadcasted nationwide, but it wasn't the only incident to happen. Because of the availability of recording and ease of sharing videos and such, issues have a much brighter spotlight to show issues and conflicts.

      [–]lurker093287h[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

      Oh I see, I thought you were talking about the other side of the argument. Yes I agree. I would say that (like it seems with white men) this seems to partly be mediated by economic problems also, there wasn't really much of a movement similar to this in the 00s when there were large wealth gains for the black 'middle class'. Also, in places like Ferguson (iirc) economic problems seem involved both in all sorts of ways, the disgruntlement at the 'revenue collection' police policies that are keeping the council afloat by cribbing fines from people who can't afford to defend themselves and in the general frustration at the unemployment rate and lack of opportunities.

      Also would add that the campaign in the late 80s and early 90s Clinton administration times by the black leadership/church groups etc was for more policing in (at least some) black communities because of the high crime rate.

      [–]therealjohnfreeman 0ポイント1ポイント  (17子コメント)

      That article is one big strawman. Has the author ever even spoken to the people he's trying to characterize? He quoted no one, offered no evidence, just an anecdote.

      They’re angry about being labeled a “racist,” just because they say racist things and have racist beliefs.

      Voting for the wrong person (against Obama in 2008, or for Trump in 2016) is enough to get this label too.

      [–]rootyb 10ポイント11ポイント  (2子コメント)

      I'm not sure why you're getting defensive. Even if it is a straw man (I mean, it isn't exactly hard to throw a rock and hit a dozen anecdotes like this), I don't think the author was even really criticizing the subject of the story, or those like him, and if there's no attack on it, it isn't really a straw man.

      It's an attempt to understand, not an attempt to attack. Everything isn't about trying to make white hetero cis-males feel guilty about stuff, and anecdotes are perfectly acceptable for this sort of discussion and understanding. If the article had been "A systemic investigation of the white male and the psychology of implied oppression in an advantageous environment", then yeah, call out the use of anecdotes all day long.

      [–]therealjohnfreeman 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

      How am I being defensive? Not sure how you got that impression.

      If it was an attempt to understand, you'd think the author would talk to the people he's trying to understand. Instead, he constructs a strawman: that white people or men think equality feels like oppression. It all makes sense in his head with the way he looks at the situation, but to offer that as an explanation for everyone else is called projecting.

      [–]rootyb 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

      If it was an attempt to understand, you'd think the author would talk to the people he's trying to understand. Instead, he constructs a strawman: that white people or men think equality feels like oppression. It all makes sense in his head with the way he looks at the situation, but to offer that as an explanation for everyone else is called projecting.

      Yeah, that doesn't really fit the definitions I've seen for ether a straw man or projection.

      It's an attempt to examine a situation and analyze the motives of someone based on witnessed behavior. I don't really see a problem with that. Of course, he could be 100% wrong, but attempting such an analysis and being wrong does not make it a straw man or projection.

      [–]Manception 8ポイント9ポイント  (13子コメント)

      Obviously a lot of racists voted Trump. The best you can say about the others is that they're indifferent to racism and other bigotry.

      [–]LewsTherinTelamon_ 3ポイント4ポイント  (5子コメント)

      But also a lot of racists voted for Clinton, so stereotyping people as racists for voting for one candidate doesn't really make sense.

      [–]Personage1 14ポイント15ポイント  (3子コメント)

      The foundational policy, really the only thing Trump was actually consistent on, was racism and xenophobia . His rise to political prominence recently was by heading up the clearly racist birthed movement. Then the actual campaign advocated for hating Muslims and, at best, being suspicious of Mexicans and trying to figure out how to get/keep both groups of people out of the country. There was no beating around the bush, there was no hiding it. He built everything on the backs of racism and xenophobia.

      To support him at best means being ok wth that.

      [–]LewsTherinTelamon_ -2ポイント-1ポイント  (2子コメント)

      People usually have different reasons for supporting a candidate. For some it might be racism, but for others not. If someone, for example, agreed in 20% with Trump and 15% with Clinton, they would pick Trump out of these two despite disagreeing with 80% of what he says.

      As for racist supporters, when browsing mainstream American websites I saw more racism from Clinton's supporters than from Trump's supporters.

      [–]Personage1 9ポイント10ポイント  (0子コメント)

      Ok....none of this changes the fact that the fundamental core of Trump's campaign were racism and xenophobia, and so anyone who supported him at best decided that other things were worth supporting someone who pushed for racism and xenophobia first and foremost.

      [–]Semaug 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

      Reddit is an American website. It is mainstream. The_Donald and most online trump supporting websites are some of the most vitriolic places online. This is because the internet is filled with alt right neo nazis. Wtf you saying.

      [–]Manception 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

      But also a lot of racists voted for Clinton

      If they did, they had to vote against their racist bigotry.

      As racists go, they're not as bad as the other kinds.

      so stereotyping people as racists for voting for one candidate doesn't really make sense.

      Which is why I was careful to say that there are those who might not be racists per se, but are indifferent to racism.

      I think I'd rather have a racist who can prioritize other issues over his bigotry, than someone who is so ignorant or indifferent that they vote for Trump's thinly veiled promises.

      [–]StabbyPants -4ポイント-3ポイント  (5子コメント)

      good, you're almost there. now consider that racism isn't a huge issue to these people and try to find out what is. it'll be handy come 2018 and 2020.

      [–]Manception 9ポイント10ポイント  (3子コメント)

      You can't ignore away racism. The civil rights movement wasn't about keeping quiet about racism and focusing on other things while people magically forgot about their prejudices.

      Ignore it and it'll grow like the cancer it is.

      [–]StabbyPants -2ポイント-1ポイント  (2子コメント)

      you want to win an election? stop focusing only on things that matter to you.

      [–]Manception 4ポイント5ポイント  (1子コメント)

      How selfish of me of care about oppressed minorities of which I'm not member myself.

      [–]StabbyPants 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

      seriously, knock it off. yeah, you can care about minorities, but to get votes, you must offer middle america things they care about and you must also not shame them for disagreeing with you. this last thing is the lesson you really need to learn.

      [–]SomeOldGoat [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

      Truly, what do you get out of phrasing this in such a condescending way?

      [–]moon_physics 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

      I remember reading a few studies that had similar results with white people believing that discrimination against them was now either at the same level or worse than people of color.

      [–]therapy [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

      When men cite examples of discrimination, they note that men are more likely to get speeding tickets and are expected to pay on dates. Women, on the other hand, tend to cite things like the gender pay gap and fear of sexual assault.

      The article has a point of view on the topic, and that's fine, but you should still present the other side fairly. Here are some better examples:

      • The education gap: men are substantially less likely to go to college.
      • The life gap: men die significantly earlier than women.

      Now, you can argue that those aren't proof of discrimination - maybe they are the result of men's life choices. The same can be said of the pay gap for women. There is a lot to debate on each of these, but it's just not fair or accurate to say, as the article does,

      Why would men believe that they are facing gender discrimination in society when there is no real evidence of it?