> I am a woman. I go around telling women to "woman up".
Well, the difference between "woman up" and "man up" is that, for men, showing emotion is a sign of weakness, so "man up" means "don't show emotion". That's a very dangerous thing to tell people who have serious emotional problems.
It's not, though. There's a perception that showing emotion is a sign of weakness for men. However, think about how you actually react to men who show emotion. How did you react to Lessig's or Doctorow's posts about Aaron, with all their emotion? Did you think them less of a man for it?
I think there is a strong taboo against men appearing out of control of themselves or their situation. But that's not really gendered: when women appear out of control, we label them "crazy bitches".
> there is a strong taboo against men appearing out of control of themselves
Exactly. This applied to Aaron asking for help he badly needed for his legal fund. This did not apply to Larry or Cory. They may have been sad or angry, but they were not personally scared, threatened, unable to fund their own legal defenses, etc., so they did not violate the taboo. Their posts were more along the lines of a father mourning a lost son. Emotion is expected there.
Absolutely. This is a perfect example of how restrictive gender norms (or, what some might call "patriarchy") can harm men as well as women, and are something we all need to care about.
> This is a perfect example of how restrictive gender norms (or, what some might call "patriarchy") can harm men as well as women
And this is why I hate the term "patriarchy" in this context: It implies men always get the best of it, there are no downsides for males, and therefore we should be dismissive of male problems.
I know this isn't what academic feminists think. It is, however, what a disturbing number of people who call themselves feminists out in the real world apparently believe.
Yup. Male privilege exists and is real (and unfair), yet it is also true that gender norms can harm men. It's a shame so many folks act like the truth of one of those statements disproves the other. I guess the combined statement is too subtle to fit in a sound bite or rallying cry.
"And this is why I hate the term "patriarchy" in this context: It implies men always get the best of it, there are no downsides for males, and therefore we should be dismissive of male problems."
Feminism benefits men as well. Patriarchy DOES exist to the detriment to men, your anger is misapplied.
"> Feminism benefits men as well.
It depends on how it's applied, doesn't it?"
Destroying systems of entrenched privilege may not be viewed as beneficial by all men that cling to these systems, no. But equality does provide for a healthier system, if one appreciates women healthy in mind and body.
Harping on straw "Feminists" won't improve our situation.
"And this is an example. It states that gender equality from the female perspective is automatically equivalent to "Destroying systems of entrenched privilege", which is a courtesy not given to the male perspective on the same concepts."
As I stated, it does by lessening strict gender roles.
> As I stated, it does by lessening strict gender roles.
But that's also true of looking at gender equality from the male perspective, yet whenever someone attempts that the old MRA strawman stereotypes get thrown around.
"But that's also true of looking at gender equality from the male perspective, yet whenever someone attempts that the old MRA strawman stereotypes get thrown around."
Generally, it's because MRAs tend to find gains for women zero-sum. There are issues with regards to divorce, child support, and custody that can be discussed, but all these can be addressed as a feminist and do not require "masculinism" as some sort of a counter. There is a difference between discussion of gender and the movement's adherents.
> Like I said, there's no need to craft Straw Feminists from whole cloth. Make your points without these fabrications.
I'm not lying and your need to claim I am damages your case.
An example from Reddit, which is very much the non-academic Real World I've been talking about:
ImaLamer:
> As someone who was raped by a woman, while drinking, something you've put full responsibility on her for in other comments, you quickly dismissed my feelings and the impact this has in my life. It was not statistically significant for you to care. So much so you took it as an opportunity to further bash men as a class.
Saganomics:
> Well ladies and gentleman, that's what Men's Rights thinks. There you have it.
The claim of ImaLamer's post being edited afterwords is difficult to take seriously: Edited posts are marked with an asterisk, which is not present on ImaLamer's post. Also, Saganomics' post happened long after the very brief window when you can edit without an asterisk appearing.
> Generally, it's because MRAs tend to find gains for women zero-sum.
The stereotypical MRA does.
> There are issues with regards to divorce, child support, and custody that can be discussed, but all these can be addressed as a feminist and do not require "masculinism" as some sort of a counter.
Your experience might be different than mine. In my experience, any mention of the idea that men can be raped by women, for example, gets shouted down by 'feminists' (you can take that label as you will) as 'hijacking' the 'real' discussion, which is solely about men raping women. Men being raped by men is, at best, a side-show to that discussion. Women being raped by women is similarly absent as a topic.
> Harping on straw "Feminists" won't improve our situation.
Mentioning they exist is not the same as harping on them.
And this points out an asymmetry: Whenever a man focuses on the male perspective of gender equality, people drag out the 'MRA' stereotype. While the stereotypical MRA exists, that stereotype is no more relevant to the issue than the stereotypical straw feminist is relevant to the female perspective of gender equality. Yet, online, in the real world outside of the academy, that MRA stereotype is in constant use.
> Destroying systems of entrenched privilege may not be viewed as beneficial by all men that cling to these systems
And this is an example. It states that gender equality from the female perspective is automatically equivalent to "Destroying systems of entrenched privilege", which is a courtesy not given to the male perspective on the same concepts.
This asymmetry is divisive and serves to perpetuate the pointless hatred that keeps equality from being realized.
I don't think it's showing emotion, I think that it's that we expect men to be self-reliant and should not need or want help from others. Men are responsible for their own outcomes. Women aren't seen as any worse for wanting help, and it's acceptable to attribute their outcomes as caused by their relationships or social environment.
Well, the difference between "woman up" and "man up" is that, for men, showing emotion is a sign of weakness, so "man up" means "don't show emotion". That's a very dangerous thing to tell people who have serious emotional problems.