Mens' rights movement

if you extended the men's roles beyond just guards it can make more sense

so there might be men who aren't guards, but have relatively low-responsibility and unpleasant jobs. e.g. cleaning the camp drains. it's a shit job, they are picked on and attacked by some of the guards who think they are beneath them, and they're looked down on by many of the inmates too who don't ahve to undertake these duties and particularly those who have managed to reach a relatively privileged position among the prisoners. but they are also assisted by a team of the lowliest inmates to help them clean the drains, who don't get to go home at the end of the day, and don't get paid for their work

Thanks Buffy I really appreciate the time you took to answer that.

Again, you've found an analogy that's helpful. You acknowledge that maybe it is limited though and maybe that's why I don't see it working with the additional factors that affect people. (Is that intersectionality?) Some prisoners would surely have considerably more privilege than some of the guards? Isolating one dynamic from many creates is difficult concept for me.

What a shame for your poor DD to have her achievement characterised as a terrible high standard.

OP in terms of finding a single voice in the UK the political party justice for men and boys are planning on contesting 30 seats at the next general election so guess they would be the people to look at but trying to find info seems to go in a circle back to A voice for men which is American. I am sure closer to the election there will be more information for you. As a mother with two boys anything which helps them interests me at least in terms of better educational results. DD has set a terrible high standard and the boys are not sure they will get as good a set of results. The home environment is the same DD and DS1 have the same father who while being an arse was at least a genius arse. DD has reflected her father's intelligence but DS1 tends not to. DS2 has a different father and is the hardest working of all three even if it doesn't turn out right all the time. So things that help boys definitely interest me.

I'm summarizing here Robin Lakoff's view on gender and language and extending it to other aspects of gender norms because it's very enlightening in this context:

The difference lay in the reward system set up by patriarchy.

That is to say that if boys tow the line and learn the lesson that patriarchy teaches them (to be strong, independent, rich, athletic, look down on anything girly etc) they are rewarded with higher status and respect. They enjoy camaraderie amongst other men and are admired by society.

Those men that don't tow the gender line suffer.

Women on the other hand aren't rewarded in the same way for towing the line. Girls who learn the lesson as they should that being female is about being attractive, kind and polite do not grow up to accorded with respect and status in our society. They are seen as lacking in authority or as too vain (or asking for it) or too indirect and dishonest in a manipulative way.

So whilst both men and women suffer, women are caught in a double bind. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Hope that's understandable!

Some men may also suffer some consequences by enforced masculine behaviour but even then they benefit from their position in the dominant class as it relates to women.

This is completely true as well. Men (as a class) dominate both women and non conforming men. Patriarchy hurts men too. Not as much as it harms women though. In a like for like comparison men will almost always come out on top.

Dervel I don't agree that MRAs come about from men being frustrated by banging up against some barrier. In the context of your post, it seems like you think that is them getting the thin edge of the wedge or an occasional injustice - is that what you meant?

I think most MRAs come about from frustration that some feeling of entitlement they have is not being met. While there are no doubt some injustices against men following a relationship breakdown, most of these men would have improved their outcomes with their children if they had shared parenting responsibilities with their partners before the breakdown. In the vast majority of cases, I would not agree this is an injustice but that the man's sense of entitlement has been wounded.

I agree with Puffins that men as a class benefit from patriarchy. Some men may also suffer some consequences by enforced masculine behaviour but even then they benefit from their position in the dominant class as it relates to women.

Sorry ReallyTired. I was was talking about men as a class, rather than individual men. I am married to a lovely most of the time man, my sons either are or will be men, do I think that they, individually and solely prop up patriarchy? No, of course not, but they benefit from it. They will never have a potential employer look at them and, along with all the other inward questions they ask have them ask about whether they are a risk vis a vis taking a year out to have a baby. If they are assaulted, they will be believed, without a police officer asking them what they were wearing and making value judgements about them as a person if they have been drinking or been assaulted before.

Men benefiting from Patriarchy isn't sexist, it's just fact. It doesn't imply that they set out to benefit from it, they just do. However, most men, and yes, NAMALT, will balk at equality. Men benefiting from Patriarchy isn't a conscious thing for the vast majority of men, it just is.

I think the point is that there are men that are at the very bad end of the spectrum that make it so women do not feel safe in society to do their thing.

Same also applies re: career progression, housework, childcare responsibilities et al. I think it's also true men will occasionally get the thin end of the wedge from time to time, as in fact I have in one area. However there is a huge difference between having to suck up the occasional injustice and having to live in a system where the deck is stacked against you more often than it's not.

All in all MRAs come about from men who are usually frustrated by banging up against some barrier and it often relates to children following a relationship breakdown, putting on tinfoil hats and seeing a vast feminist conspiracy where none exists.

I'm doing very well at framing my question so I'm going to have another pop at it!

If we say Misogyny is a hatred of women then that's easy to identify and there are lots of examples. However, it's not men as a whole that are like that and those people may be enabled by certain aspects of society, but are not representative of society.

However, if we say misogyny is anything that reinforces the oppression of women as a whole under a patriarchal system... well then that's pretty much everyone to some extent isn't it? Men and women?

Yes, there are the people at the ends who do really bad or really good stuff, and a whole load of people in the middle who don't, but also don't speak out against it.

Feminism is speaking out against it. MRA groups should speak out against it too.

What tends to happen is that the MRA groups instead speak out against feminism, and blame us for the issues some men have.

..and sometimes you are goaded into doing it by a MRA troll masquerading as a radical feminist in order to discredit you. Ain't that right, dagee?

Sorry, that first paragraph means to say that I think we sometimes describe men as a whole by using a small representative section.

buffy, this is an issue a get a bit confused about; maybe you could help?

I understand Reallytired's pov, but I also see the sense in looking at men and women 'as a whole'. I can see however that this 'as a whole' that we apply to men is split. There's actually defining men as a whole by using a minority - such as cat-callers, rape threat trolls (and worse) etc. These people aren't representative to my mind, but an extreme end of the misogynist spectrum.

What is true of men and women too 'as a whole' is that they support the patriarchy by acting in accordance with its norms - or society's norms, if you will. I think I understand that the latter enables and exacerbates the former, if you see what I mean. But it's two distinct ends of the spectrum isn't it? And women 'as a whole' are just as complicit in the day-to-day maintenance of those norms, even though they are the ones to suffer most because of it. Also we can call anything misogynist that reinforces the patriarchy. But that means, to me, that everything a woman does that characterises her as a woman under traditional rules might also be called misogynist.

Sorry, those are questions not statements!

you only have to look at the relationships board on here to see how many women are living in sexist relationships where the man sees no benefit to himself in changing that situation

"Is that how you think it works? I don't."

Erasing prejudice and unfair discrimation does not erase luck. We can experience good and bad luck in all kinds of ways. Luck is very random and anyone can be hit with random terrible luck. (Divorce, deathof loved ones, illness, disablity, being a victim of crime)

However I feel that erasing all unfair discrimination and prejudice is what as a society we should aspire towards. Surely it benefits us all to have the best people in jobs.

My daughter's school is OFSTED inadequate which makes it hard to recruit good teachers. Her class has a very young male pakistani teacher and he is really gifted. He is imaginative and all the children adore him. My daughter wants to marry her teacher!

Many parents had reservations about having a "paki" and a "muslim" (horrible racist language I know) teaching small white children. Even I was shocked by how young he is. Infact he doesn't look old enough to shave, yet alone to teach. However I am prepared to admit that I was wrong. I am glad that my daughter has an effective teacher rather than the wet piece of lettice of a teacher who was there last year.

I feel that treating people as individuals is fairer than saying that "girls can't play football" or "Men can't be nursery nurses/ teachers" limits society.

"Men might not have set up the system, but they do perpetuate it, because, for the vast majority of men, it benefits them to do so."

That is a sexist statement if there was ever one.

Men just like women are individuals. Some men are lovely thoughtful creatures and don't have a sexist bone in their body. Some men (and even some women) are misogynist twats. Indeed many women support the partiarchial system. (Ie. doing all the housework for their men, in some countries circumising their daughters etc.) I believe that women facilitiate a lot of sexism and stetrotypes.

As a society we need to treat humans as individuals rather than making assumptions based on race, sex, creed or sexuality. (or any other ism that I have not thought of)

Men might not have set up the system, but they do perpetuate it, because, for the vast majority of men, it benefits them to do so.

Same here ReallyTired. A friend of mine was so excited when he landed a job as an au-pair and was gutted when the family cancelled because the father just couldn't get on board with the idea of a male nanny. And you couldn't find a more gentle person than this guy.

Any boy who is outside of the subscribed gender norms (who doesn't like football for starters) is going to suffer a fair bit of isolation.

"Men and boys do NOT suffer discrimination. We live in a patriarchy. Look up what that word means."

Of course men and boys suffer discrimination. Not of the same kind as women do and granted that most of the problems that men face are down to the restrictive gender norms of patriarchy but they didn't set up the system any more than we did.