Why isn't there a genuine 'Men's Movement'..?

Puffins...

Would you have the same attitude about women being underrepresented in IT or another field?

My brother is in IT. There's one woman on his team and about 15 men. Is that a problem? I think so.

But on the other hand, there weren't any women at all on his university course and female applicant to his company are less than 5% of all applicants. So maybe women just don't want to work in IT? I still think that's a problem.

Gendered job roles and prejudices against a person applying for a roles typically occupied by the other gender, is a problem that affects both men and women.

Women face the discrimination in technology/industry/finance/business/etc... And men face it in teaching/childcare/nursing/etc.

If you're a man who wants to be a nursery nurse, primary school teacher, or nurse... It's a problem just in the same way as if you're a woman who wants to be a programmer or stock trader.

Prashad

Why do you think that men are underrepresented in intakes of nurses?

Do you think they don't achieve the grades needed to get onto the degree course?

Do you think that they fail at interview?

Do you think that they apply in the same numbers as women?

You know that none of that is true, so look at why they don't apply which is the actual reason for their under-representation and, shock! It's not because they are discriminated against.

Nurses are a graduate workforce who are still paid as if they are not.

Male nurses are seen by society as being effeminate. IME this is based on bullshit, but hey.

Nurses are still viewed as 'doctors handmaidens' rather than as the professionals they are.

Once those issues are all sorted, more men will apply and be equally represented. Which will be good for the profession. No boo hooing here at all.

You might want to try your 'but men are discriminated against' shtick about a different profession?

I haven't read the whole thread, but there are groups out there that are forming some kind of movement -- not cohesive, but there is a confluence. Two for a start:

The Mankind Project

Boys to Men Mentoring

I also work with a lot of men who run men's groups and do facilitating work in this field, including mentoring and workshops.

bertie I don't buy that. I don't think people look appreciably different when aroused, other than facial expressions. Our modern make up was developed for the stage to avoid people looking completely washed out under bright lights. Since we live in bright lights now it's quite useful. People look quite odd wearing heavy makeup in normal light.

I don't think modern makeup produces some evo-psych type of response any more than women blackening their teeth in Japan, shaving their foreheads or painting their faces with lime powder did. I think it's purely cultural associations.

I have seen one of the local evangelical christian groups doing sessions for dealing with Porn Addiction and I think Gambling/Alcohol/Debt.

OK, the style of make up used in our culture is. Mascara - makes lashes look longer, taking the focus off the pupil and eyes look wider, when aroused we open our eyes slightly wider and our pupils dilate.

Lipstick makes the lips look large, darker and moist. When we are aroused our lips plump up and become moist and darker. Not as dark as lipstick, obv.

Blusher - again sexual arousal causes a slight blush to the cheeks.

Eyeliner again takes the focus away from the pupil although apart from that doesn't really do much in terms of sexual attraction. Eyeshadow similarly. Foundation is more about making us look healthy in terms of complexion (and nowadays about looking perfect/"flawless").

High heels force women to walk in ways which also mimic sexual arousal. Our hips wiggle more and our bums stick out. Plucking eyebrows in a "raised" position again makes the eyes look wider.

This is actually making me think. The assumption is that in the past all blokes were somewhat rapey bastards and didn't really care whether a women was aroused or not, but way back before any kind of make up, I wonder if the average sexually active bloke could tell the difference. The thing is that these are mostly unconscious signals. This kind of make up tends to make women look more attractive because we are attracted to people who are attracted to us. So if women are constantly going around looking as though they are in a state of attraction, it makes them more attractive to others. And because it's so far exaggerated from the natural differences between unaroused and aroused, we probably can't tell the difference, really.

I don't think it make up mimics how we look when aroused, it's just paint with added cultural associations. Look at this guy:

It doesn't really make sense, does it? There are plenty of vain men, but most of them don't wear make up, there is no such thing (that I know of) as make up which makes men look more masculine, in fact men wearing make up, aside from perhaps eyeliner/stage make up in goth bands etc, tend to look feminine. Yes that's probably to do with our associations about make up but I'm sure they could invent some which accentuated features considered masculine. (Not saying "they" should, just musing here).

I don't get how make up disguises a woman's sexual availability. It mimics how we look when we are aroused/attracted by somebody, but being aroused or attracted is nothing to do with availability.

I do love an intelligent man

That's not you, rissepuc

Yes of course they were largely male affairs for years and there has always been a tension among left wing groups between matters that advance the working class and matters that advance women's rights. The unions though were never the equivalent movements to feminist groups, it's still true to say that men have never needed to organise to fight for men's rights in the past just as they don't need to do that now.

The make up stuff is bunk. Men have worn make up in the past and make up was not acceptable for women for a very long time.

If boys go through adolescence receiving false indications of women's sexual availability without any correction, could it lead to a situation where adult men are unable to instinctively judge the sexual availability of women?

Come off it, this is nonsense.

FloraFox

Well, certain British Union movements were largely male affairs for many years, and why they may not have been fighting for men's rights per se, they did create a forum in which specifically male concerns could be discussed, and general concerns could be discussed in a male context. It's hard for me to see how feminist friendly, male-focused social movements would form when men are currently such a (politically and socially) disorganized bunch. Only those who feel a strong sense of threat seem able to motivate themselves in this way. The idea of positive change through grass-roots politics seems to have largely disappeared from the UK.

As for makeup: scienceblogs.com/observations/2010/11/04/the-science-of-makeup/

With the caveat of not reading the referenced research myself, it seems to indicate that makeup serves two purposes - making women appear better mates (from the youth / health perspective) and increasing their apparent sexually availability. The latter effect (if genuine) is something worth considering when bringing up boys. If boys go through adolescence receiving false indications of women's sexual availability without any correction, could it lead to a situation where adult men are unable to instinctively judge the sexual availability of women? It would make an interesting study, but probably almost impossible to carry out as, I suppose, most men who encountered few constantly makeup-wearing women during childhood were likely to have been brought up in a pro-feminist environment.

" But rarely have I seen the opposite acknowledged by feminists; that solving men's issues will also help women."

Well... I can't speak for all feminists, of course, but I don't think it will help women very much. Certainly not as much as focusing on women's issues would help men. Because there are more gender based issues facing women, and they tend to be more serious. As women are at a disadvantage right now, it makes more sense for society as a whole to focus on women's issues. In time this will also bring gender based issue affecting men towards equality too. So I don't see a need for a separate men's movement.

rise as to the the types of men who support feminist aims you forgot a third type: Those who have become actual grown ups! Have looked at the forces at large in the world and want better for our own children.

It maybe that all interactions you have had with women all boil down to sex in your head, in which case I am actually genuinely sorry for you as their is a larger world out there you are totally blind to.

This whole white knighting tactic you seem to think is so prevelant amongst us is little more than a clumsy attempt to minimise others you feel intellectually ill-suited to engage with on the points.

The only issue (and I'm talking worldwide here not just in our privileged corners of the west) that possibly trumps women's rights in terms of global significance are climate change and the environment.

If you look at developing nations those with large educated female populations are less prone to starvation, less likely to succumb to extremism, and all round enjoy better qualities of life.

Male suicide, prostate cancers et al of course are problems, and anyone rolling their sleeves up and getting stuck in on those issues have my enduring respect and admiration (so thank you Buffy!). However it IS possible to walk and chew gum at the same time and care about both.

It is also not unreasonable to focus discussion on a forum that's setup to go into a specific topic to y'know talk about that thing? Unless you have form for this sort of thing pop into gardening forums and insist they talk about Welsh shaft mining or something.

As to Videogames, yeah that's me and you know it has never once impeded me in attracting women, and I wonder if you know women now outnumber men in playing Videogames ever so slightly.

I submit it is you not I that suffers under ignorance and stupidity, good news though! You can choose to correct it...

I randomly picked up a copy of Shortlist magazine (free magazine aimed at men, from the makers of Stylist) that had been dumped on the tube this morning (I never do this) and saw something that made me think of this thread.

They have the Shortlist's Mentor Project campaign, to encourage men to sign up for a scheme run by Horses' Mouth, an online mentoring community. A really positive scheme, I wonder how it is going.

"We would like you to sign up to a network we have developed with online mentoring site Horsesmouth – a safe and anonymous environment in which you can mentor young men about anything from career advice to depression."

Shortlist Men's Project

Horse's Mouth

Popcorn and sparkling moscato anyone? Its evening where I am...

ris can you answer this?

What is your view of MRAs campaigning to take resources from women's refuges to give to men's refuges?

wave men were not defending their rights as a class of men in the late 1800s nor at any other time in history. Working men's clubs and unions were fighting for working class rights, not men's rights.

How does a group of men go about telling women that they shouldn't act on their individual female right to wear make-up because they think it teaches their sons male-stereotype behaviour?

Has anyone suggested this?

Feminist writes OP in a feminist section acknowledging that men have XYZ problems

Thread still turns out with "feminists don't acknowledge that men have XYZ problems"

(Despite the fact that this wasn't actually the main thrust of the thread)

To be fair, we have seen quite a few high-profile sportsmen talk about their problems with mental health issues, drug/alcohol/gambling addiction etc over recent years. Ronnie O'Sullivan is one example that springs to mind. The trend may not have a name, but I'd say it's a nascent social movement. And there's Movember, which is a men's movement to improve male health, with specific reference to prostate and testicular cancer and mental health issues. Truth is, though, that being a mentally-ill man has it's gender-specific problems. 70% of prison inmates (who are mostly men) have two or more mental health conditions. If you're a sex offender, you're much more likely to have a severe mental health problem than the general population. Substance addiction and spousal abuse are strongly linked. These are difficult causes to champion if you're a man. "So, you're a man, and you're campaigning for a charity that helps men who have raped?" Not sure this is what the OP is asking for.

But maybe I do the OP a disservice. Anyway, we should look at cultural context. Social movements need a strong degree of shared feeling. Feminism comes from a general feeling of female dis-empowerment that is active within the general female population, but the equivalent male empowerment groups that formed when men had to group together to defend their rights in the late 1800s have been torn down and scattered. Working men's clubs, Unions like the NUM and so forth have gone for political and for equality reasons. The nation's elite has diluted many organisations that empowered men because they empowered the wrong kind of men, and society as a whole rejected others because they were no longer fit for purpose. What we are left with is a general male ennui at the bottom and middle of society. Most men are socially passive because they have bought into the idea that collectivism is out-dated. They are individualists who benefit from a general male-bias but who play no organised role in maintaining the bias... or getting rid of it. Those who are into collective male movements are those who have a history of being empowered and are fighting to keep their power. Eton, Old Boys networks etc. They are the real enemy.

But let's not be too harsh on men. Women are pretty individualistic too, these days. And maybe that's a part of the reason why there are no feminist male movements. How does a group of men go about telling women that they shouldn't act on their individual female right to wear make-up because they think it teaches their sons male-stereotype behaviour?

"^^ peak stupid"

Then will someone explain this "power" everyday typical men are supposed to posess?

"Prostate cancer doesn't kill. Most men die with it, rather than from it."

Cancer Research UK say otherwise (and I will believe their word over yours)

"Prostate cancer is the 4th most common cause of cancer death in the UK (2012), accounting for around 7% of all deaths from cancer. Prostate cancer is the second most common cause of cancer death among men in the UK (2012), accounting for 13% of all male deaths from cancer.

In 2012, there were 10,837 deaths from prostate cancer in the UK (Table 2.1).1-3 The crude mortality rate shows that there are 35 prostate cancer deaths for every 100,000 males in the UK."

www.cancerresearchuk.org/cancer-info/cancerstats/types/prostate/mortality/uk-prostate-cancer-mortality-statistics

^^ peak stupid

"Can you read? Men are in power"

Most world leaders may be men, but most men aren't world leaders.