why are there only feminists? why aren't there any malists? why are women screeching for their rights and creating women rights associations and we find no men creating similar organizations? this's a prologuePlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Because we're so dumb that we can't coin the correct word "masculism"--even after the gals gave us the model to work from!
Because men write HIStory and not HERstory and that's why its been the way it is for a damn long time. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
So far replies are blahblahblahbefuckinblah There is such "movements" Mostly they revolve around the ease in which a father is sundered from his own children. (Father's rights movement) As Fraggle said there is a masculism is serves as a counterpoint to feminism, including arguments that childless women earn more (117% by some studies) that men in some professions. Obviously there is little support for this ...yet.
Starting the List, I guess I suppose that might depend on your criteria for such a group. And I suppose I can probably start making a list. But let us start, for the moment, with Fathers 4 Justice. Fatherhood, or masculinity? As I said, it might depend on your criteria. To wit, I'm not certain Sam Keen's SPERM (Society for the Protection of an Equal and Righteous Manhood) qualifies. ____________________ Notes: British Broadcasting Corporation. "Urgent review over Palace protest". BBC News. September 14, 2004. News.BBC.co.uk. February 17, 2011. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3653986.stm Hamilton, Craig. "Get Over It!" What Is Enlightenment? Fall-Winter, 1999. EnlightenNext.org. February 17, 2011. http://www.enlightennext.org/magazine/j16/keen.asp
I didn't think of male custody battles. It's true that men are often discriminated against in this way.
There are organizations that look out for Men's Rights. That said, traditionally men have lorded it over women and even to this day men are often paid more than women.
so do we agree that men seem to hog all the jobs, and women seem to win over the kids, which lead to each sex creating associations to level off that imbalance? and to be honest, i never put into consideration women winning the kids after divorces, the scope i had in mind when creating this thread was throughout human history, women having the upper hand in court for keeping their children seems kinda insignificant to ages when men treated women like cattle.
Anthropologists remind us that in the Paleolithic Era, when the human population was as low as 15,000 but eventually reached one million, they were all nomadic hunter-gatherers. This meant that babies had to be carried all day, every day. Even when they learned to walk they couldn't start earning their keep until they could be trained to help their mothers gather and carry the nuts, seeds and herbs, and later help their fathers in the hunt. So women did not give birth to a new child very often. This changed abruptly after the Neolithic Revolution. Agriculture ensured that there was plenty of surplus food to feed the non-productive members of the community, and sedentism allowed babies to be set aside. Suddenly women were able to have a steady series of babies; and they were expected to do so since increasing the size of a farming and herding community brought about economy of scale and division of labor, disproportionately enhancing its prosperity. Child mortality was high, perhaps as much as 80%, so it was every woman's "duty" to save the tribe from extinction. The population tripled in the first millennium of the Neolithic Era. For nearly twelve thousand years, from the Agricultural Revolution until the closing decades of the Industrial Era, women's primary responsibility was reproduction. Of course they had other tasks to do as well, in their "spare time."
^^^^^^ :jawdrop: uh, wow fraggle, but that wasn't what i had in mind either, although it was more "human science" than anything else in this thread. sigh, let me answer my own question, aren't women the ones always creating organizations because men were always the ones in control? i mean, i just had this crazy idea the other day, and i mean no offense and don't want it to be misunderstood, but isn't it possible that men really are "better" than women? and by better i mean better physiological specs.. bodily functions over all. they're like the ferrari, and women are the honda? i mean really, is it just possible?
Apart from the "anything is possible" answer, that analogy doesn't strike me as holding up very well. There are certainly ways in which males are physically superior (average strength being one obvious example) and there are ways in which males are neurologically superior (better ability to mentally determine and manipulate spatial relationships, for example). At the same time, though, woman have their areas of superiority as well, such as being better able to notice and retain details, being less prone to violence, and less likely to commit crimes in general, they have relatively larger language centers in their brains and use their hemispheres more equally than do men. Whether one calls men "superior" (or women "superior") or judges them to be equal is largely a subjective matter.
Women live longer, sometimes get an extra set of color receptors, have better peripheral vision, more physical flexibility (makes you less prone to injury-I should know), generally do better in tests of verbal aptitude (those bigger brain areas) thicker corpus callosum (possibly why females see things in terms of connection and not hierarchy? maybe? I dunno? more likely socially-based though.) As far as male aggression goes...there was a discussion among a few FtM trans people online I was privy to as to whether the male aggression is learned or an innate function of running around with testosterone...and based on the transguys' experience...it may be almost entirely learned. As in: certain men are violent because they believe it's okay for them to be violent. The thing that really changes for the transguys who commence hormones is the sex drive-they find all they can think about is sex, sex, sex. That kind of corresponds with the sociological research that found a strong correlation for boys between high testosterone levels and losing one's virginity in high school. Now...as far as masculism goes...feminism can be looked at refusing old behavior that used to be a gender norm. As in stay home, take care of the kids, don't do heavy labor, etc. So if guys want to stand up for their right to show their feelings, wear lacy things and pretty colors, stay home with the kids and not get laughed at, marry older women, and generally perform in what's now considered female-only things...without being looked-down at...or discriminated against... Well, right on.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! As someone who's going to be legally female, I would like to not have my sex be the reason I don't make as much money. ATM I'm in a masculine-dominated field which I can clearly see guys getting the plum jobs. I've been told that some clients don't want a female security guard at night on some contracts, and will threaten to cancel the contract if they get one. I would rather, MUCH rather work graveyard...my body clock loves it. I also wonder if it's the reason I'm not getting hired to work armed. Armed pays better. I carry a cert for semiauto, shotgun and baton. I work unarmed. Funny, but I doubt a Ferrari would do 200,000 on the original drivetrain like my Honda...and it would get about 12 MPG going anywhere...I couldn't even afford parts for one of those. Best is going to be a matter of perspective.
Notes on Superiority While I certainly cannot speak for Scifes, in taking seriously the pretense of caution, I believe the most appropriate answer to the proposition would be, "Well, of course, if men write the qualitative criteria." Comparing literal equality to equality before the law, one vital difference is that literal equality cannot be established without understanding the relationship between the assessment and the purpose or idyll. As the meaning (purpose) of life is not factually established, one cannot assert an objective qualitative outcome regarding men and women. As Pandaemoni put it, the assessment is subjective; Scifes even went so far as to put the word "better" in quotes. Indeed, the question comes down to how men are better than women. According to masculine priorities in the world, of course men are better than women. In American culture, at least, it is often considered psychologically problematic to attempt to assign oneself a "proper place" that is anything less than superior. More objectively, however, we should recall that the male is a mutation. Even today, as the XY human gestates, the body forms as female, and transforms to male along the way. We men actually only exist for a specific purpose, which is to perpetuate the species. Everything else we do is just to pass the time. Freud wrote and spoke of penis envy, and within limited circumstances, there is some credibility to the idea. However, in reality, it is possible that masculine deviancy, such as the tendency to destroy life recklessly and extraneously, is in fact symptomatic of the inadequacy experienced when the human psyche feels obliged to view itself in a subservient role. One rebels, seeks control. Men, in this context, exist in a permanent state of rebellion against God, the Absurd, "reality", or whatever we choose to call the whole of extant condition. The question of superiority depends on purpose. One might travel five miles in any direction, but if they have no specific destination, how might we measure progress? Meanwhile, for all of us stuck with our mortality upon this rain-slicked rock, it seems well enough to accept that we're in this together, and not worry about superiority until we know how to measure it. I would even suggest that millennia of useless wars, hatred, and other stupid endeavors speak clearly to that point.
Well.....when I was a fight judge for the Detroit Tough Man - Tough Woman fights, I accepted that some women are vastly better at fighting than some men. Much tougher, for sure. There is something about watching young women pound the crap out of each other, kick each other in the head and get all bloodied up doing it that removes that bit of social prejudice. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! My wife is an office person, I knew that when I met her. I am a home body, I like being in our home, doing the chores (very Zen thing, chores) and providing a warm, comforting, supportive environment for my family. When we had our son we discussed putting him in day care so we could both work. After some consideration, I went through my client portfolio and picked out every customer that had ever given me a hard time about paying the bill or yelled at me or anything else that I did not like. I then culled about 50% of my client base, cut them off, sent them elsewhere, gave them the boot. I did relent on 2 of them who begged me to give them another chance. (I am sort-of indispensable and impossible to replace) I then set my sons baby bouncer on a bench in my shop, provided him with some fun stuff to play with and raised him up. I have a very well - equipped workshop so he learned how to use a lot of neat tools and processes as he grew up. Now he is in university, builds his own computers (I taught him how to do that) and has become expert with a bunch of really sophisticated software. The wife is still an executive and we are both very happy that we chose this path. One last point that my son made last week: while it is true that most men are better paid than most women in the same job, many more women still have a job and many men have been without work for years now. I would indeed profit if my wife was paid better, just as she would profit if I made more money. We try very hard to have a fair and equitable relationship and division of labour where both of us use our personal strengths for our mutual benefit. It works for us.
More like a Ferrari and a Mercedes-Benz. Two different standards of excellence. Now if you want to trash-talk about drive train longevity? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
but if we see it from the perspective of human culture history, it is objectively men who are in control, wouldn't you say? i'm not saying it's right or wrong, but hasn't it always been men enslaving and abusing women? wasn't that the norm? we never heard in the course of human history of women domnating men in a society, as in taking control of them, managing the policies of their society and having the tougher grip on money and finance, it's always men who "do" things and women "follow". and to rule out that women follow not because they can't do but because they choose not to, i introduced abuse, when what men decide is inconvenient to women, they don't have much say about it. in that premise, the "ability to have things end up to your interest", since men are who do it all the time, can't that be an objective measure of male superiority? maybe even biologically more evolved?] EXCELLENT point, the superiority of the Ferrari is complemented by the inferiority of the Honda, imagine a market with only Ferrari class cars, how superior would the Ferrari be? however... nobody in his sane mind would say a honda is "better" than a ferrariPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image! even if the ferrari is low on endurance, doesn't withstand the fatigue of kids, groceries, alternating weather and different roads as much as the honda, even thought it has more expensive spare parts and is more prone to being stolen, consumes more gas.. you just can't say it's better than the ferrari:shrug: it suits a slice of consumers more, it fits some other purposes more, but in matters of knowledge and science and research put into it, the quality of its conception.. the value of its capabilities[although don't include those of the honda], just is more.. EXACTLY what i had in mind; if men are the ones who write the qualitative criteria, doesn't that necessitate that they're the ones who're better? look at it this way, if an academy was opened to train kings for some country, and statistically, the majority of students who were eventually chosen to be kings were always charismatic rather than scientific, can't we say, by judging from the end result, that charisma is "better" than science? if there was a table tennis tournament, and one japanese player kicked the asses of ALL other players, except the weakest one, a russian, who loses to everybody BUT the champion.. who is the best player? the japanese or the russian? what is the strongest object? rock, paper or scissors? it's like although women may be better in absolute attributes than men, men are kinda especially equipped to over run women, it's like how a market can function with just the honda much much better than it would with only the ferrari, even though the ferrari outperform the honda in almost everything, it's also like while if in a fight between carnivores and herbivores carnivores would definitely win, but if we isolate each in a separate planet the herbivores would survive better.. it's as if some group's superiority is conditional to other groups' existence, which would be superior? the one superior of all or the one necessary for the superior one's dominance? i don't know, but that might be the case of men and women.. it is possible that men are "absolutely" better than women, in the same way a color screen is better than a black and white one(assuming same price and power consumption etc)... but it's almost never that way, it's usually 1 is better than 2, but 1 isn't good without 2, which makes it hard to know which is better than which. simple, in that men can subject women and not the inverse. that's the core of my thread. but when one sex assumes control, what purpose might possibly turn the tables against its favor?
(rolling eyes at the bolded word) Better is subjective to conditions, scifes, which is what I was getting at. A ferrari is certainly a faster car. Men can pick up heavy furniture better, and have greater upper-body strength. Men tend to drop dead of heart attacks sooner too, tend to accumulate fat where it's bad for them, tend to have more problems with high blood pressure. Women have better peripheral vision, seem to have better endurance, a lower center of balance, better color perception, a tendency to outlive men, tend to have less blood pressure problems. However-the above is partly a socialization issue...men are socialized not to complain, so they tend to ignore health problems...this is part of why men with wives live longer-the nag factor ("Go get a checkup, honey!")Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!. There's a big difference that may or may not be due to socialization: women aren't as competitive...and they compete in different ways than men do. Even when competing, they want to maintain the relationship. When women get into the power structure in relatively equitable numbers, they seem to powerfully restructure society in a more equitable direction. A woman-run organizational structure tends to be different from a man's. Women run things differently-not better or worse, just differently...and that difference can be useful. So, because a man can beat up, subjugate, dominate, abuse, push around, batter, economically control,or set up a society that favors his precious self... that makes him superior? Is that actually what you're saying, Scifes? That the ability to subjugate someone makes superiority? Because that's a pretty nasty ethical position to take, that of might makes right. It's the thought of a dictator, really.
