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

[AWholeLottaNosy]

So instead of Pick Up Artists, MRAs, UKIP etc, why isn't there a genuine 'Men's Movement' to look at issues such as male suicide, depression, alcoholism, difficulties with expressing emotions and vulnerability, male violence ( against both men and women), homophobia, how to have a fulfilling relationship with a woman and be a good father etc? I would fully support anyone who attempted to do this as they are laudable and important aims.

INSTEAD OF SLAGGING US OFF FOR TRYING TO ADDRESS ISSUES THAT AFFECT US AS WOMEN?

Right but if you're literally sitting in your house playing single player games day after day then you're probably depressed. Nothing to do with meeting a partner.

That article talks about the reasons why - they're not just opposed to the wording because it doesn't mention women enough, it's about the provision of services. Same issue as refuge is facing now, despite women being in much more urgent need of refuge places, funding is going to male places equally. Hang on, there's a cartoon thing it reminds me of. I don't necessarily agree with their definitions of equality/justice but the cartoon illustrates the point nicely.

"Chivalry?

Really?"

Yes really. People (of both genders) are conditioned from a young age to be nicer to females than to males for no reason other than chivalry.

" there's a cartoon thing it reminds me of."

The guys in the cartoon should have bought a ticket like everyone else, then they wouldn't need to worry about finding a box high enough to stand on.

In that cartoon I'd say the shortest child represents women fleeing with children. They are in the greatest need of protection and need the most in terms of input and resources. The middle child would be women fleeing without children. They can share a lot of the resources with women who are fleeing with children which saves time/money. The tallest child would be men fleeing violence, they need protection but typically the support needed is different.

Women who experience emotional/physical abuse experience this in the context of a culture which supports these kind of relationship dynamics, they need a lot of support to undo those messages or their chance of returning to the same or a new abusive relationship is extremely high. Conversely men fleeing violent women tend not to return to abusive relationships in general, while they may have a traumatic bond with their particular abuser just like any abuse victim, there are not the same societal ideas and structures holding it up. He is not usually expected by others to return or to give her another chance, whereas women are often expected to do this. Relationship abuse within same sex relationships is complex and can have strains of the male-on-female "script", the personal cycle of abuse, the gender issues are more complex which is why there is a specific organisation to offer support with this (Broken Rainbow).

OK because we can all buy tickets to avoid violence

It's a metaphor!

Yes it would be nice to buy a ticket to avoid violence (which men are far more at risk of than woman just to add)

Chivalry isn't just "being nice to women". It comes from an outdated belief that women are frail little flowers who need to be looked after and protected and shouldn't be allowed to make decisions or do things for themselves.

Hold a door open for the person behind you, you don't need to consider their gender to do that. Why don't we just ALL be nice to each other, rather than moaning that you have to be nice to women? And it's a pretty small example of a privilege.

Not relationship violence, though, which is what refuges are for. Yes street violence is a problem, but we were talking about refuge places.

Puffins... You illustrate my point perfectly.

Of course women are discriminated in the workplace. But it is the tendency of feminists to overlook or ignore the way men are discriminated too.

In the case of nursing: men are severely underrepresented in the intake of new students, and also male nurses can expect their care to be refused by female patients whereas male patients are not given the choice to refuse care from female nurses resulting in female nurses being more useful and therefore more employable. If you're a man who just wants to be a nurse and does not care about promotion, you are disadvantaged. If you are a male patient who does not want to be cared for by a female nurse then you are disadvantaged in comparison to a female patient.

Regarding childcare roles such as a nursery worker... Is he a paedo?

For men, these are real issues that affect them. What you've done is what I highlighted in my first post, the whole 'boo hop, cry me a river, women are so much worse of' response. But it has the affect of ignoring an issue relevant to the value of 'equality' that we think is so important. And we wonder why men don't care about feminism? Theres such a narrow 'us & them' culture.

A better approach, IMO, is to acknowledge this discrimination against men. Solving it would help women. More male nurses means less males in typically male dominated industries and more opportunities in those industries for women. Male issues and female issues are linked.

I really hope lurkers appreciate this, because... dull. Anyway, for the last time.

If they are anything like the BNP, I would have used the term racists. I really don't see how UKIP qualify as a men's rights group, do they ever mention things like prostate cancer funding?

They don't particularly qualify as a MRE group, however, they openly propose and support misogynistic policies. Policies that won't do men any favours either, because they are also very very stupid.

If someone hates men/boys for no reason other than because they are male, that is misandry.

No one hates men or boys just because they are men or boys, misandry isn't real, unless you live in the febrile imagination of PElam or one of his scary violent MREs

Your interest in men's problems is zero (and many feminists have openly said that), again that is why men's rights movements exist, they aren't expecting feminists to sort out their problems for them.

That's going to come as a nasty shock to my husband and various other men I support due to some volunteer work I do. MREs do expect feminists to sort out their problems for them, They are pretty explicit about it, maybe they just haven't told you that yet.

If feminism was about equality then it would be supported by both men and women and there would be no need for MRAs. But as it turns out, we have one side campaigning for women's rights only and another side campaigning for men's rights.

There are plenty of male feminist allies thanks, because even pretty stupid people realise that hurting women hurts men too in the long run.

It seems to be a lose-lose for men. If they expect feminists to help with men's rights they get abuse and ridicule, but if they set up their own movements they also get abuse and ridicule.

This makes no sense, so... yeah... no comment.

Really? And what "power" do typical everyday men who aren't world leaders or PMs have exactly?

Can you read? Men are in power, if they wanted to change things for other men they would, they don't, ergo, men in power couldn't give a shiny one about men not in power.

I don't know what MH is, but it is true feminist NGOs get millions of government funding while men's groups get zero and get by on donations alone.

MH = Mental health, that thing which helps people with MH problems, like the ones who commit suicide. And yes, refuges do get funding from the govt, because even the govt recognises they do a good job, they only got that funding having run entirely on donations and women giving up space in their own houses at great risk to themselves for YEARS. Welcome to capitalism.

And meanwhile men are committing suicide, dying of the under-researched prostate cancer and going to prison. But hey, I guess men should just ignore these issues and join feminism instead. Trying to Find TV ads to write complaints about I guess is far more important.

Prostate cancer doesn't kill. Most men die with it, rather than from it. Treatment for it is exemplary and always has been. It took a huge amount of action to get the medical profession to even admit that women were dying of breast cancer. If you want to make a noise about prostate and other cancers, maybe join Men United, like my DH did. Bill Bailey would be really happy if you do.

Oh, and that video... proves absolutely nothing. Lots of ear splitting noise. Could have been of a bear baiting or the floor of the stock exchange. Nice cherry picking of comments by the way.

"That’s why conventionally good looking women aren’t great supporters of feminism."

Ahahaha! Oh arsenal, you have dug deeper than your previous low with this one.

Prashad, maybe you're reading a different post to the one I made, because at no point did I suggest boo hoo cry me a river, I merely showed you that you're entirely and completely wrong when it comes to nursing. Is that the same thing now?

Did somebody just say that conventionally good looking women are not supportive of feminism ?

Brilliant

Only ugly, hairy ones need apply

Then surely solving the women's issues will help men too. Which is what feminists are trying to do. No feminist ever said that men's and women's issues are not linked.

I feel like you're trying to have an argument, where no argument actually exists. Yes there are problems with the way men are perceived in female dominated workplaces, this is related to the fact that female dominated professions are seen as a bit shit, and why would a man want to do them, cue instant suspicion.

Feminism supports the notion that men can be and are just as good at caring as women are. If it didn't, then there would be feminist campaigns about preventing men from entering female dominated workplaces. I'm sorry, I'm not seeing what you're really asking. Are you asking why feminists don't campaign for/support this? Or why men's movements don't exist which campaign for and support this? In either case I refer you to my first point on this thread, which is that (a) there are usually more pressing issues that people want to support and (b) because feminism is already supportive of this kind of outcome. It's not about getting women everything men have and leaving the rest to the blokes, it's about gender not being grounds to discriminate on. That includes men!

Puffins,

You did not show me that I am wrong. Do you dispute that men are underrepresented in the intake of new nurses? Can you not see how the profession being gendered is of a disadvantage to male nurses?

Promotion (which I agree favours men) statistics aren't the only way of measuring discrimination in the workplace.

What you did, was completely ignore the possibility of men being discriminated in nursing/teaching/childcare and went straight onto the areas in those professions where women are discriminated against. And that is a 'boo hoo' response.

Oh I stopped reading that post after about the first three lines and missed that gem.

I know this is bear shit obvious, but really, if your idea of being disadvantaged means that you don't get to have as much sex as some unspecified other person, your worldview is extremely skewed, twisted and upside down. Like, just... astounding. Literally. Go and read some stuff about Ferguson, for Christ's sake. Nobody's asking you to be on board with feminism but check your privilege.

Bertie...

I agree that feminists believe that solving women's issues would help men, and struggle to get men to see that. But rarely have I seen the opposite acknowledged by feminists; that solving men's issues will also help women. In fact, any talk of men's issues seems to be met with hostility by many feminists (at least on this forum).

What's my point you ask? Well, it can be summed up with the question "Why the hostility towards men's rights movements?".

I appreciate that women want to prioritise their own efforts on the issues that most affect them, and I'm not saying that feminists should go out and start campaigning for fairer custody courts or more men in nursing. But why oppose it?

That guy above, rissepuc I think... I can't say I want to be associated with what he's saying, but some valid points were mentioned. Men do have genuine issues that in this thread, have been dismissed. I don't think it's reason that's causing the dismissal of those issues, it's willful ignorance and misandry.

Finally, I expressed the view that this approach is actually hurting the feminist cause.

Hope that clears things up regarding my perspective.

"That’s why conventionally good looking women aren’t great supporters of feminism."

Lolz. I don't have anything constructive to add.

I'm stunning. Just putting it out there.

"They don't particularly qualify as a MRE group, however, they openly propose and support misogynistic policies. Policies that won't do men any favours either, because they are also very very stupid."

Then why are they mentioned at all in this thread?

"No one hates men or boys just because they are men or boys, misandry isn't real, "

Noone? That's a lie and you know it.

"There are plenty of male feminist allies thanks"

There are also females supporting men's rights, including Canadian Senator Anne Cools a former radical feminist who helped found shelters for female DV victims. She is now an advocate for male victims of DV (and the key speaker at the video I posted earlier about the forum for male victims of DV).

But in general, the people who identify as feminists are dominantly female. There are "male feminists" here and there but are usually either misinformed ignorant brainless idiots or guys who are dim and are just pretending to be feminists thinking it might help get them laid (aka "white knights").

As for male politicians claiming to be feminists or wearing feminist t-shirts it's a good tactic in the run-up to the election to get votes from feminists (much respect to David Cameron who refused to wear one of those t-shirts for a photo!).

"Can you read? Men are in power"

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

^^ peak stupid

"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"

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

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?